Clarion Housing Association Limited (202307308)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307308

Clarion Housing Association Limited

3 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, when 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 the resident’s reports of a leak, and the associated decant (temporary move) for repairs.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is tenant of the landlord, and lives in a flat in a block.
The resident contacted the landlord on 29 November 2022 and a leak coming from the property above. He reported there was damp and mould throughout his property. It is unclear what action it took at the time. The resident reported the issue again on 29 December 2022. The evidence shows the landlord tried to access the property above on 30 December 2022, but was unable to get in.
The landlord attempted to gain access to property above on 5 occasions between January 2023 and end of March 2023.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 20 April 2023. He said he was unhappy the landlord had not resolved the leak in a reasonable timeframe.
The landlord fixed the leak on 10 May 2023.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 18 May 2023, and offered the resident £280 in compensation for its handling of the matter, including 2 missed appointments.
The landlord’s damp specialist contractor inspected the resident’s property on 30 May 2023. It issued a report that said:
1. There was evidence of water damage in all rooms of the resident’s property following the leak.
2. The entire property needed to be “stripped back to its shell” due to the high moisture levels and presence of fungus growing throughout.
3. The kitchen and bathroom needed replacing.
4. The resident would need to be decanted for it to complete the works due to the disruption.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response and asked it to open a stage 2 complaint on 30 May 2023. He said he had been told the works would take several months and he would have to stay in a hotel. He was unhappy about this. He asked for a rent reduction covering the period he was decanted.
The resident reported the leak had returned on 14 June 2023. The landlord attended the next day and was unable to gain access to the property above. The records show it fixed the leak on 24 June 2023. The landlord offered to decant the resident into a hotel in June 2023. The resident refused.
The landlord offered the resident a temporary property within its own stock in September 2023. The evidence indicates the resident refused the offer. He said it was too far from his daughter’s school.
The landlord’s solicitor sent the resident a warning letter on 13 October 2023. It said if the resident did not accept its offer of a decant within 7 days it would start injunction proceedings. It explained the landlord wanted to gain access to the property to complete the repairs needed.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 6 December 2023, and said:
1. It was unable to progress works as the resident did not agree to the decant. The landlord said it had difficulties finding a property which the resident found suitable. It made several attempts to move him, but none were accepted. Therefore, it issued an injunction warning.
2. It wanted to resolve the issue without taking legal action.
3. It apologised it had initially offered the resident a hotel. It accepted, due to the complexity of the work and the resident’s individual circumstances, a self contained property would have been a more appropriate offer.
4. It explained it would not reimburse rent or council tax during the decant as he would still be liable for those costs under the terms of his tenancy. It confirmed it would consider travel expenses and food packages once the resident was decanted. It advised its discretionary home loss payment would only be paid when a resident must move out of a property on a permanent basis.
5. It apologised it did not open a complaint investigation when he first complained.
6. It awarded the resident £225 in compensation. This included:
  1. £200 for its handling of the decant process.
  2. £25 for its complaint handling.

Events after the complaints process

The resident contacted us on 23 June 2024 and asked us to investigate his complaint. He said he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the leak repair. He said he was also unhappy with the landlord’s offer of a hotel and wanted it to offer him a “home loss” payment.
The landlord contacted the resident on 10 July 2024 and offered him £100 in compensation for the delay in sending its stage 2 complaint response.
The resident accepted an offer of a decant and moved out of his property on 11 October 2024. The landlord completed the works in January 2025, and the resident moved back into the property around that time.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak

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. The landlord is required to carry out repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
The landlord’s leak, condensation, damp, and mould policy states that it will diagnose and resolve damp and mould in a timely and effective manner. Further, while necessary, it will carry out repairs, remedial works, or improvements to rectify any problems.
The landlord’s repair policy sets out target times for repairs. This states it will complete immediate repairs within 4 hours which includes uncontrollable leaks. Also, emergency repairs within 24 hours, and routine repairs within 28 days.
The resident reported the leak from the property above in November 2022. From the records provided it does not appear the landlord took any action at the time. This was unreasonable and a failing in its handling of the matter. The resident was inconvenienced by the leak, and distressed at the impact on his property. The landlord’s failure to act may have increased the distress he experienced. The resident was further inconvenienced by the need to raise the issue of the leak again in December 2022 before it took action.
When the resident reported the leak again in December 2022 the landlord attended within 24 hours. This was in line with the timeframes set out for emergency repairs in its policy, and reasonable in the circumstances. The evidence shows it was unable to gain access to the property above. This impacted on the landlord’s ability to resolve the issue.
The evidence shows the landlord also raised a damp and mould inspection in November 2022. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence it had due consideration for his report. The inspection did not go ahead until May 2023, 6 months later. This was an unreasonable delay. The resident was evidently distressed at the presence of damp and mould in his property. The unreasonable delay may have increased the distress he experienced.
We acknowledge the comments in the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response that it had attempted to complete the damp and mould inspection in January 2023, but it could not gain access. The resident disputed this claim in his stage 2 complaint. We have not been provided with evidence that proves the landlord sought to gain access on these dates, which is a failing in record keeping. It is therefore not possible to determine which account is accurate, but the onus is on the landlord to prove that it took reasonable steps to resolve the repair. If it cannot provide evidence of this, we cannot conclude that it fulfilled its repair responsibilities and this is a failing.
The evidence shows the landlord regularly sought to gain access to the property above to try and resolve the leak in early 2023. But it was unable to get in until May 2023. This impacted on its ability to resolve the leak. The delay was somewhat outside of its control. The evidence shows it was trying to gain access with the appropriate urgency. It also reattended promptly in June 2023 when it was reported the leak had returned. The length of time it took to complete the repair evidently increased the impact the resident experienced. The landlord cannot reasonably be held responsible for the entirety of the distress the resident experienced, due to the access issues.
The landlord appropriately apologised and offered compensation for its handling of the repairs in its stage 1 complaint response. It was appropriate to outline its next steps in order to inspect the damp and mould within the resident’s property. However, it gave an inaccurate date of when the resident first reported the leak. This was a shortcoming in its response.
Following the inspection from 30 May 2023, the landlord promptly sought to source the resident alternative accommodation in early June 2023. This was appropriate considering the living conditions described in the report. The landlord initially offered the resident hotel accommodation. This was inappropriate, a fact the landlord later accepted. Following its earlier offer a hotel, the evidence shows the landlord sought to find the resident more appropriate accommodation from July 2023 onwards. This was reasonable in the circumstances and evidence it had due consideration for the concerns the resident had raised about the offer of hotel accommodation.
The landlord sought to complete a repair to remove the fungus present in the resident’s property in June 2023. This was reasonable in the circumstances considering it was aware it would take time to move the resident out. It sought to improve the conditions within the property before it could decant the resident.
However, we have seen no evidence the above repair went ahead. Its repair log, provided for this investigation, does not show the repair as “completed” but as “posted”. Based on the lack of information available, it is reasonable to conclude the repair did not go ahead. This was a further failing in the landlord’s handling of the matter. The resident was evidently distressed at the conditions in the property. Its failure to complete the above repair may have increased the distress he experienced.
The landlord made an offer of decant accommodation within its stock in September 2023. We acknowledge the resident was unhappy with the offer and refused it due to the distance from his daughter’s school. The information available shows the landlord explained it was of the view the offer was suitable and within a reasonable distance (33 minute walk) of the resident’s daughter’s school. The landlord outlined its position with clarity. While we are not questioning the resident’s reasons for declining this offer, considering the shortage of stock within social housing, the offer of accommodation was reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord was not at fault for delays caused by the resident declining this offer of accommodation.
The evidence shows after the resident had refused offer of accommodation, the landlord sent a warning letter in October 2023. The landlord sought to decant the resident with urgency so it could get access to the property. We acknowledge the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s warning letter. However, the landlord has a responsibility to maintain its properties. It was therefore appropriate to warn of possible court action in order to try and progress with urgent repairs.
The landlord used its stage 2 complaint response to apologise for its handling of the decant issue. It also outlined its latest position on that aspect of the resident’s complaint. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence it sought to put things right for the resident and show learning. It also outlined its position clearly on home loss payments, a rent reduction, and covering costs. Its decision not to offer a home loss payment was reasonable application of its policy. It is also worth noting the landlord did not cover any additional costs as the decant property it provided had cooking and laundry facilities. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident has asked for a rent rebate and council tax rebate in his complaint. The landlord appropriately addressed this in its stage 2 complaint response, and said it would not provide either. The landlord would not be expected to pay these costs as he would have incurred the costs if he was in his main property. The evidence shows the resident was not charged rent separately for the decant property. this is in line with the tenancy agreement and the landlord’s decant policy. The landlord’s position on this matter was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord’s comment about providing a dehumidifier in its stage 2 complaint response was inappropriate. Its tone was dismissive citing it was unable to find information on its system. We have seen the resident raised concerns about this issue in March 2023 and throughout his complaint. The lack of detail in its response was inappropriate. The resident was inconvenienced by its failure to provide an adequate response to his concern.
The landlord accepted the leak took longer to fix than it first thought in its stage 2 complaint response. It was a shortcoming in its response it did not make a further offer of compensation for the delayed repair.
The resident was decanted on 11 October 2024. The landlord progressed with the repairs and completed them in January 2025. Considering the complexity of the repairs needed, this was not excessive. In fact, the landlord completed works in less time than its initial estimate of 6 months. We acknowledge having to live away from his home may have caused the resident distress and inconvenience. However, given the complexity of the work needed, it was appropriate to move him away from the property.
The landlord offered the resident a total of £480 for its handling of the repairs and the associated decant. Considering the failings identified above, and the fact the matter was outstanding at the time of its final offer, this did not fully put things right. Therefore, we have decided there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leak and associated decant.
Our remedies guidance sets out that for findings of maladministration an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident. The exact amount of compensation will depend on the individual circumstances of the complaint. The guidance states that we may make findings of maladministration when we identify failures “which adversely affected the resident”. This depends on the severity of the failing and the impact on the resident. We have decided an order for a further £300 is appropriate to put things right for the resident in this case. This is in addition to the landlord’s previous offer of £480.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. The timeframes in its procedure mirror that of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our Service’s expectations of a landlord’s complaint handling practices. The Code states landlord must send stage 1 complaint within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint responses within 20 working days.
The Code states a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction, however made. We have seen evidence the resident made clear expressions of dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the leak in February and March 2023. It was unreasonable the landlord did not open a complaint on either occasion. This was a failing in its complaint handling. The resident was inconvenienced by a hard to access complaints process. He was further inconvenienced by the need to explicitly ask it to open a complaint investigation in April 2023, before it did so.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response 18 working days after he made the complaint in April 2023. It was inappropriate the landlord did not acknowledge the delay in its complaint response. While any delay would have caused some level of inconvenience to the resident, overall, the delay was not excessive.
The resident asked the landlord to open a stage 2 complaint on 30 May 2023. The landlord did not open a stage 2 complaint at the time. This was a further failing in its complaint handling that inconvenienced the resident. The resident was further inconvenienced by the need to seek assistance from us, in November 2023, in order to get a response to his stage 2 complaint.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response 7 months after he made it. This was an unreasonable delay and a failing in its complaint handling. We welcome the fact it offered compensation for its failure to open a stage 1 complaint in early 2023. Its comment about the delay at stage 2 was inappropriate and lacked transparency. It said its systems had “no mention made of any escalation request”. This was unreasonable as the evidence shows the resident explicitly asked it to escalate his complaint on 30 May 2023. This supports the conclusion the landlord operated an unfair and hard to access complaints process.
The landlord contacted the resident in July 2024 and offered a further £100 for its complaint handling. We welcome the fact it acknowledged errors in its complaint handling at stage 2. However, the offer was made 7 months after the final complaint response. Therefore, we do not consider it an offer of compensation made as part of the complaint process. This impacts on the degree to which the further offer of compensation put things right for the resident. We have therefore determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord offered a total of £125 for errors in its complaint handling. Our remedies guidance sets out that for findings of maladministration an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident where they have been distressed and/or inconvenienced by the landlord’s errors. For the reasons set out above we have decided an order for a further £100 in compensation is appropriate to put things right for the resident. This is in addition to the £125 it already offered for errors in its complaint handling, meaning the total compensation for complaint handling is £225.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of a leak, and the associated decant for repairs.
2. Associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this decision the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
2. Pay the resident £ 1,005 in compensation. Its total offer of £605 should be deducted from this total if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
  1. £780 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and the associated decant.
  2. £225 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by errors in its complaint handling.