From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202334429)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202334429

Clarion Housing Association Limited

8 September 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 the resident’s reports of a leak at a neighbouring property causing damage to her property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat in a block.
  2. On 29 July 2023 the resident contacted the landlord, she told it there was a leak coming from the flat above her property. She said there was water dripping from the ceiling light in the boiler cupboard and the water and walls and carpet were wet.
  3. Between 29 July 2023 and 1 August 2023, the landlord sent several contractors to the property, including an electrician and a plumber.
  4. On 7 August 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. She said:
    1. There had been poor communication between the landlord and its contractors when she reported the leak on 29 July 2023.
    2. There was a lack of empathy from the landlord.
    3. The landlord had failed to adhere to its “promise” that it would make the area safe if it could not fix it.
    4. She had been left in a “dangerous” situation with exposed wires and dripping water and without hot water and electricity for 3 days.
    5. She contacted the heating contractor at 3pm on 29 July 2023 and was told it was a “cold water issue” and she should “arrange for a plumber to attend the property”.
    6. She wanted the landlord to take “full accountability” for the damage caused to the property and complete the necessary repairs.
  5. On 20 September 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said:
    1. On 29 July 2023, when the resident reported the leak, it made “several attempts” to gain access to the neighbouring flat. It confirmed it “gained access” the following day and isolated the leak.
    2. It had not identified service failure because it attended the initial emergency call within the service level agreement of 24 hours and all affected properties were “made safe”.
    3. The resident was without hot water for 24 hours.
    4. There was an outstanding repair of a light fitting which needed to be refixed following the leak. It advised the resident to contact its repairs team regarding this.
    5. It apologised and said it had no record of the conversation where the resident said she was told it was a cold-water issue and told to arrange a plumber herself.
    6. It was unable to compensate for loss or damage caused to the resident’s property. It advised her to make a claim via her home contents insurance provider.
    7. She may be able to make a claim through its “building’s insurance” and provided details of how she could do this.
    8. It apologised and said the resident “should have been shown empathy”. It awarded £50 compensation in recognition of this. 
    9. It apologised for the complaint handling delay and awarded £50 compensation for the stage 1 complaint response being issued outside of its complaints policy timescales.
  6. On 9 October 2023 the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. She said:
    1. The landlord had not confirmed the boiler issues in the neighbouring properties had been resolved.
    2. The landlord had not taken accountability for the damage caused to the property and had provided incorrect information regarding how many days she had been without electricity and hot water.
    3. The landlord had not fully investigated the phone call she made to it on 29 July 2023. She provided evidence of the calls she made on her phone bill.
    4. There had been a lack of updates from the contractor who had attended on 30 July 2023.
    5. She had rejected the compensation, and it had been applied to her account anyway.
  7. On 22 November 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaints response. It:
    1. Apologised and said it had “reviewed the phone call evidence” the resident had provided. It acknowledged she had made “several phone calls” to the heating contractor and apologised for the inconvenience this may have caused her.
    2. Confirmed she was “without heating for the 3 days”.
    3. Apologised for the lack of communication and said it had found service failure with regards to this.
    4. Advised her to make a claim on her home insurance or a legal liability claim against the heating contractor.
    5. Said it had removed the compensation from her account as requested.
    6. Awarded £200 compensation in addition to the previous £100 awarded. This was broken down as:
      1. £150 for lack of communication and inconvenience caused.
      2. £50 for the delay in issuing the stage 2 complaint response.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to this Service. She stated her desired outcome was for the landlord to compensate her for the cost of paying a painter and decorator and buying a new carpet.

Assessment and findings

The leak from a neighbouring property.

  1. We find that there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak. The reasons for our findings are below.
  2. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms the landlord’s statutory repair responsibilities under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It states the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the premises including internal walls, floors and ceilings in repair, but not including internal painting and decoration. It also says the landlord is responsible for ensuring the electric wiring, sockets, switches, gas pipes and water pipes in “proper working order”.

 

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will complete emergency works within 24 hours and routine repairs within 28 days. It defines emergencies as where there is an immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public. It states that “works to make safe” or a temporary repair should be completed at the initial visit.
  2. The resident said she called both the landlord and the heating contractor on 29 July 2023 at approximately 8am. This was logged as an emergency repair on the landlord’s system. The heating contractor’s notes stated it attempted to contact the neighbour to gain access. It said it attended the neighbour’s property the following day, 30 July 2023, and isolated the leak. It was unclear whether this was within the 24-hour emergency repairs timescales. If it was outside 24 hours, then it was not significantly outside this timeframe and the delay would have been beyond the landlord’s control as it needed to contact the neighbour. We acknowledge that water leaking into the resident’s property for this period of time would have been distressing for the resident. However, there were limitations to what the landlord could do in this situation.
  3. In its stage 1 complaint response, on 20 September 2023, the landlord said it had not found a failure in service as all affected properties were “made safe” within 24 hours as per its repairs policy. However, the landlord’s repairs log stated that an electrician attended the resident’s property on 31 July 2023 at 9pm and “made the lighting safe”. This was outside of the 24-hour emergency repairs timescales. This was a failing as the landlord has not explained the reasons for this delay.
  4. The resident said that she was without heating, hot water or electricity for 3 days. The landlord confirmed in its stage 2 complaint response, that she had been without heating or hot water for 3 days. It is unclear how long the resident was without electricity for based on the available evidence. However, the repairs log stated the issue was related to electrics in the hallway and boiler cupboard and did not impact the entire property. We acknowledge this would have been inconvenient for the resident.
  5. The resident told us the leak caused damp and mould on the walls and ceiling in her property. She provided photos of this. The landlord’s repairs log showed that the resident reported the mould to the landlord on 4 September 2023. On 18 September 2023 the landlord attended the property and treated the area with a mould wash. This was reasonable and in line with its leaks, condensation, damp and mould policy (LCDM) which states it will resolve mould in a timely and effective manner.
  6. The resident told us that she wanted the landlord to provide compensation for the painting and decorating that she paid for following the mould wash. The landlord’s repairs log stated that, on 10 October 2023, it told the resident that she was responsible for the internal decorating. This was reasonable and in line with its repairs policy. The landlord would only be expected to carry out redecoration to make good areas which it had damaged. The landlord was not responsible for causing the leak and therefore it was not responsible for the damage to the resident’s décor. We are aware the landlord issued the resident with a “paint pack voucher”. This was fair in the circumstances to assist her with redecorating. The landlord was not obliged to reimburse the resident for the cost of her damaged carpet for the same reasons. However it was reasonable for it to refer her to the heating contractor’s liability insurer if she wished to pursue a claim for this. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to consider insurance matters and therefore we cannot comment on this further.
  7. The resident said that she wanted compensation for the damage caused to her property. The landlord said, in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses, that it was unable to award compensation for damaged belongings. This was reasonable and in line with its compensation policy. The landlord advised the resident to make a claim on her home insurance and also provided details if she wanted to pursue a claim with the landlord’s buildings insurance. This was appropriate.
  8. The landlord has accepted that there were communication errors in its response to the leak and subsequent complaint. The Ombudsman has considered whether the landlord’s offer of compensation for the inconvenience, distress, time and trouble encountered by the resident due to the landlord’s errors, was appropriate. In doing so, we refer to our remedies guidance (published on our website), which sets out our approach to compensation.
  9. The landlord awarded a total of £300 compensation to the resident. This was broken down as:
    1. £100 for complaint handling delays.
    2. £50 for lack of empathy in its responses.
    3. £150 for inconvenience, time and trouble.
  10. The remedies guidance suggests awards of between £100 to £600 where there was a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident. The amount of compensation the landlord awarded complies with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. Therefore, we consider this to be reasonable redress and the landlord is not required to do anything further regarding this aspect of the complaint.

Complaint Handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. All landlords which are members of our Scheme are obliged to follow the Code. The Code states that the landlord should provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the complaint. It should provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days from the request to escalate the complaint.
  2. The landlord introduced an interim complaints policy following a cyber-attack in June 2022. This was in place until March 2024. It aimed to acknowledge new complaints within 10 working days and respond within 20 working days. At stage 2 it aimed to log requests within 10 working days and respond within 40 working days. These timescales were not compliant with the Code. However, the landlord’s recent complaints policy includes the same timescales referenced in the Code.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 7 August 2023. The landlord acknowledged her complaint within its published timescales. However, the landlord did not issue its stage 1 response until 32 working days later, on 20 September 2023. This was 12 days outside of its published timescales. This was a failing, which would have inconvenienced the resident.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process on 9 October 2023. It issued its response 32 working days later, on 22 November 2023. This was within its published timescales.
  5. The landlord apologised to the resident for the complaint handling delay. It awarded £100 compensation to the resident for complaint handling delays. This was broken down as:
    1. £50 for the delayed stage 1 response.
    2. £50 in recognition of the stage 2 complaint response taking longer than usual.
  6. The offer was in line with the amounts offered in the landlord’s own compensation policy. It is also in line with our remedies guidance, as referenced above.
  7. In summary, the award of £100 compensation for the complaint handling delays at stage 1 and 2 of the landlord’s complaints process proportionately reflects the impact of the delays on the resident. Therefore, we consider this to be reasonable redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of a leak at a neighbouring property damaging her property.
    2. The associated complaint.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that the landlord pays the resident the £300 compensation offered in its complaint response, if it has not done so already. The findings of reasonable redress are based on the understanding that the landlord has made the payment of £300.