From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202233701)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233701

Clarion Housing Association Limited

7 August 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 regarding the landlord’s handling of:

  1. The resident’s reports of a leak from above, subsequent repairs, stay in temporary accommodation, and request for compensation.
  2. The resident’s reports of a leak from the toilet.

2.     The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3.     The resident is an assured tenant. The property is a 3-bedroom flat on the second floor of a block. The landlord is a housing association. The landlord has recorded that the resident has a mental health condition and difficulty with reading and writing.

4.     On 21 January 2023 a burst water pipe in the property above caused a leak into the resident’s property. The landlord attended the property the same day and made it safe by turning off the water and electrics. It also arranged temporary accommodation for the resident and her children. On 23 January 2023 it inspected the property but found it was too wet to restore the electricity and carry out repairs. It provided a dehumidifier and extended the resident’s temporary accommodation until 3 February 2023.

5.     The resident made a complaint on 23 January 2023. She raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of her stay in temporary accommodation and stated that it had placed her and her family into hotel accommodation in the early hours of the morning without any money or belongings. 

6.     On 3 February 2023 the resident returned to the property. The landlord also confirmed that:

  1. It had reinstated the electrics.
  2. It had applied stain block to the affected areas.
  3. It had fitted a new section of plasterboard in the bathroom.
  4. It had refitted the bath panel and silicone.
  5. It had repaired the tiling above the bathroom window.
  6. It had completed a mould wash throughout the property.
  7. It had scheduled further decoration works for 29 March 2023.

7.     On 8 February 2023 the resident reported a leak from her toilet. The landlord attended the next day, but it did not find a leak. After further reports, it tried to attend on 24 February 2023 but reported no access. It arranged a follow-up appointment for 1 March 2023. On this visit the operative did not find an active leak but carried out precautionary work, including resealing the base of the toilet and replacing the flush. The resident made further reports of a leak after this repair. In June 2023 the resident cancelled a scheduled inspection. She said that the leak was resolved. 

8.     On 24 February 2023 the landlord called the resident to discuss her complaint further. The resident raised the following issues:

  1. She had previously complained about leaks from the property above. The current leak had damaged her flooring and other belongings. She had no contents insurance and could not replace the damaged belongings.
  2. The communication had been poor during her stay in temporary accommodation. The landlord had informed her that she would have to be out of the hotel every few days. This had caused stress, and the situation had impacted her mental health.
  3. There were water marks on the ceiling and a new leak from the toilet had developed.
  4. She requested rehousing and compensation for her damaged possessions.

9.     The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 24 March 2023. It apologised for the delay in issuing the response and offered £50 compensation for this delay. It confirmed the following:

  1. The January 2023 leak was unrelated to earlier leaks and was the result of a burst water pipe.
  2. It arranged emergency attendance and temporary accommodation for the resident on the same day, in line with its repairs policy.
  3. It installed a dehumidifier, but the electricity meter ran out of credit which delayed the drying process.
  4. It completed works on 3 February 2023 and scheduled decorative works for 29 March 2023.
  5. The resident reported a separate toilet leak on 10 February 2023. It attended on 24 February 2023, but the resident did not provide access. On 1 March 2023, it attended, found no leak, and conducted precautionary works by resealing the area and installing a new flush.
  6. It declined to offer compensation for damaged belongings as it found no evidence that it was liable for the leak.
  7. It signposted the resident to apply for rehousing through the local authority.

10. On 24 March 2023 the resident escalated her complaint. She said that she was not satisfied with the landlord’s response to the leak, the damage to her possessions, the toilet leak, her stay in temporary accommodation, and the compensation offered. On 27 April 2023 the landlord spoke with her to discuss her stage 2 escalation request. During this call, she said:

  1. The flooring remained damaged following the leak.
  2. She could not afford to replace her children’s toys and other belongings that were damaged.
  3. She considered the compensation insufficient and said the landlord should not have offset it against rent arrears.
  4. Her toilet continued to leak, and operatives had told her it needed replacing.

11. On 23 May 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It upheld the stage 1 decision and said that:

  1. The January 2023 leak was unrelated to earlier leaks.
  2. It had scheduled ceiling redecorations for 29 March 2023, but the resident refused this.
  3. Its records did not show earlier reports of damaged flooring, but it arranged a further inspection on 6 June 2023.
  4. Hotel records showed the resident stayed in the same hotel throughout the stay and did not raise any concerns during this time.
  5. It did not consider itself liable to pay compensation for damage to the resident’s possessions, stating that its policy did not cover compensation for such damage. It confirmed that it did not hold responsibility for the leak, but it awarded compensation for the inconvenience and disruption caused.
  6. It confirmed that it had offset the £50 stage 1 compensation against the rent account because the account was in arrears. It also acknowledged that delays in benefit payments had contributed to the debt, which was later cleared through a back payment. To recognise the inconvenience, the landlord awarded a further £50 goodwill payment and paid it directly to the resident.
  7. It found no leaks from the toilet on 1 March 2023. The resident missed a later appointment on 25 April 2023. It arranged another inspection for 6 June 2023.
  8. It offered £300 in compensation, comprised of £150 for the inconvenience caused by the leak, £50 compensation at both stage 1 and stage 2, along with an additional goodwill payment of £50.

12.        On 18 August 2024, the resident confirmed that she wanted the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint. She said the landlord had now replaced the toilet, but she remained dissatisfied with how long this had taken and how it had responded to her request for compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

13. The resident historically reported a number of leaks from the property above. We have not seen evidence to confirm that the leak on 21 January 2023 was related to the previous leaks. The Ombudsman considered the landlord’s handling of the earlier leaks under case reference 202215743.

14. This investigation will primarily focus on the period from January 2023 until the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process in May 2023. While the resident’s past experiences undoubtably contributed to the overall stress and inconvenience experienced, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess how the landlord responded to the report of a leak after the burst water pipe, and how it handled the related complaint.

15. The resident has said the situation has affected her mental health. While we do not doubt the resident’s comments, it is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the cause of, or liability for, impacts on mental health. The resident would need to ask the court to consider this through a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, we will consider the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident.

Policies and procedures

16. The landlord’s responsibility for repairs webpage confirms that it is responsible for repairs relating to water mains and pipes. It also confirms that the landlord does not repair any flooring that residents have installed.

17. The landlord’s repairs policy defines an emergency repair as one that poses an immediate danger to the resident, the public, or the property, or one that threatens the resident’s health, safety or security. The landlord’s repair policy states that it will attend and make safe emergency repairs within 24 hours. It aims to complete non-emergency repairs within 28 days.

18. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it may not pay compensation for claims that a home contents insurance policy should cover. This includes damage to the resident’s belongings, including floor coverings, due to leaks and floods. It also confirms that the resident is responsible for obtaining this insurance.

The resident’s reports of a leak from above, subsequent repairs, stay in temporary accommodation, and request for compensation

19. There was a history of leaks from the property above. At the time of the burst water pipe on 21 January 2023, the landlord had started arranging final works to redecorate the bathroom following an earlier leak. The records do not show that the earlier leaks were related to the burst pipe. However, the repeated issues likely increased the resident’s distress. In response to the complaint, the landlord acknowledged the inconvenience and offered £150 in compensation.

20. When investigating a complaint, we apply our dispute resolution principles which are to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. We will review if the landlord has failed in its responsibilities and if that failure has caused any adverse impact on the resident. If we identify a failure, we will then examine if the landlord took enough steps to put things right and learn from the outcomes.

21. We have considered each aspect of the landlord’s handling of the January 2023 leak in turn below.

Handling of a leak from above and subsequent repairs

22. The landlord accepted responsibility for the repairs following the leak into the resident’s property from the burst water pipe. After learning about the issue on 21 January 2023, the landlord responded the same day to make safe, in line with its repairs policy. It was appropriate for it to arrange temporary accommodation for the resident as it needed to safely disconnect the water supply and electricity.

23. After the leak, a surveyor inspected the property and identified repairs. On 3 February 2023 the landlord confirmed that the repairs were complete. This is within 28 days of the leak and is in line with the landlord’s repairs policy for non-emergency repairs. The landlord also issued a decorating voucher to the resident. The landlord’s response to the repairs was prompt, reasonable and consistent with its repairs policy.

24. During a call to discuss her complaint, the resident raised concerns that the leak caused damage to a part of the flooring in the property. She has confirmed with this Service that the laminate flooring in the hallway of the property was damaged. The landlord’s records show that it was aware of the damage to the resident’s floor. A form signed by the resident dated 8 February 2023 confirms that the landlord had agreed to remove and dispose of the damaged flooring, but it would not replace it. Despite this, there is no evidence that the landlord removed the damage floor. The resident has confirmed with this Service that she later removed the flooring herself.

25. The landlord’s responsibility for repairs webpage confirms it does not repair or replace flooring installed by residents. While not obligated, the landlord agreed to remove and dispose of the flooring. It reasonably should have done this once it agreed to. It did not do so even after the resident reported her concerns again in April and May 2023. This failure likely impacted the resident, and she had to remove the flooring herself.

26. The landlord did not address the resident’s reports of damaged flooring in its stage 1 response (this is considered further in our complaint handling assessment below). This likely would have caused further frustration for the resident as the floor was still damaged. By not addressing and investigating the report of damaged flooring at stage 1, the landlord missed an opportunity to resolve the issue early and offer a resolution. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said the resident had not included the flooring issue in her original complaint. While the landlord did arrange a further inspection of the flooring, it is not clear if this inspection happened. 

27. Overall, the landlord took prompt action when it became aware of the burst water pipe. It made the property safe and arranged temporary accommodation for the resident while it completed the repairs. It carried out follow-on repairs in line with its repairs policy and offered compensation for the inconvenience caused by the leak. However, it did not manage the issue with the damaged flooring effectively. Although not obligated to remove or replace the flooring, the landlord had agreed to remove the flooring, which it did not do. This was not reasonable and would have likely added to the distress and frustration the resident was experiencing.

Stay in temporary accommodation

28. The landlord arranged an immediate temporary accommodation on 21 January 2023. The landlord’s initial response was appropriate given the severity of the leak. On 23 January 2023 the resident informed the landlord that she was unaware of the meal arrangements while she was staying in the hotel and she had not eaten while she had been in temporary accommodation. Once the landlord became aware, it responded quickly by issuing food vouchers on the same day to reimburse the resident for the missed meals. It also confirmed that the hotel would provide breakfast and an evening meal during her stay.

29. There is also evidence that the landlord maintained communication with the resident while she was in temporary accommodation. Although the landlord initially booked the emergency accommodation for two days, it appropriately informed the resident of delays to the repairs and extended the hotel stay accordingly. This approach was appropriate and demonstrated a commitment to support the resident during her stay in temporary accommodation.

30. In the resident’s stage 1 complaint, she raised concerns that communication was poor during her stay in temporary accommodation and the landlord had informed her that she would have to be out of the hotel every few days. However, the landlord’s stage 1 response did not fully address these concerns. While it provided a timeline of events following the leak, it did not investigate the resident’s concerns about the temporary accommodation. This is considered further in our complaint handling assessment below.

31. Nevertheless, in its stage 2 response, the landlord explained that it had booked a family room that was suitable for the size of her family. It stated that it found no evidence that the resident had raised any concerns about the room during her stay. The landlord also confirmed that the resident remained in the same hotel throughout her stay in temporary accommodation and that it had kept regular contact with her. 

32. While it is clear that the resident found her stay in temporary accommodation challenging and distressing, overall, the landlord’s management of the stay was reasonable. It took appropriate steps to arrange emergency accommodation, kept the resident informed, and resolved issues promptly once it became aware. 

Request for compensation

33. The resident informed the landlord that she did not have a contents insurance policy when the leak occurred. The landlord referred to its compensation policy, which states that it may not offer compensation for claims that should fall under a home contents insurance policy. The resident is responsible for obtaining contents insurance.

34. The situation clearly caused distress, especially given the damage and loss of personal items. However, we cannot determine liability for damaged belongings or order the landlord to pay compensation as these matters are best suited to an insurance claim. In this case, the landlord responded to the leak on the same day, made the area safe, and followed up appropriately. No evidence shows that the landlord failed to act after receiving the leak report. Based on this, the landlord was not obligated to offer compensation for the damage caused by the leak.

35. In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it confirmed that since it was not responsible for the leak and had no liability to compensate her for the damaged belongings. The landlord also expressed sympathy to the resident and offered £150 compensation for the inconvenience caused by the leak. It was appropriate for it to acknowledge the impact of the leak and offer compensation as a gesture of goodwill.

36. This shows that the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation was overall reasonable, and by offering £150 for the inconvenience caused, it has been empathetic and used appropriate discretion in line with its compensation policy.

Conclusion

37. The landlord responded to the initial leak in line with its repairs policy. It treated the repair as an emergency, arranged temporary accommodation on the same day, and extended the hotel booking to allow time to complete the repairs. It also completed the follow-on repairs within 28 days. The landlord also appropriately explained that it was not liable under its compensation policy for the damaged possessions.

38. While not obligated, the landlord did agree to remove the damaged floor. Not acting on this agreement is a service failure. However, the £150 compensation offered was reasonable and aligned with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The guidance states that awards between £50 and £100 are reasonable when there was a minor failure by the landlord and it did not appropriately acknowledge this or fully put it right. While the damage to the floor was inconvenient, there is no evidence that this prevented use of the home. The compensation appropriately reflects the impact on the resident and we determine this provides reasonable redress.

Reports of a leak from the toilet

39. The resident reported a leak from her toilet on 8 February 2023. The landlord attended within 24 hours, carried out a water test, and found no leak. This response was prompt, reasonable and in line with its repairs policy.

40. The resident raised further issues regarding leaks from the toilet on 10 February 2023. On 1 March 2023 the landlord found there was no active leak. However, the operative completed precautionary work. The landlord acted appropriately, attended the repair with in the 28-day non-emergency time frame and took reasonable steps to repair the toilet.

41. In her stage 1 complaint, the resident raised concerns regarding her toilet. However, in its stage 1 response, the landlord explained that operatives did not find an active leak and it completed precautionary work within required timescales. This was a reasonable response.

42. A landlord is entitled to repair rather than replace an item, unless it is beyond economical repair, or may pose a significant health and safety risk. We have not seen evidence to show that staff recommended replacing the toilet and no evidence to show there was a leak which meant that it needed to replace or repair the toilet at the time. It was reasonable for the landlord to decide that replacing the toilet was not necessary at this time.

43. In its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed the repairs it had completed and advised it would reinspect the toilet on 6 June 2023. The landlord gave a reasonable response since it had not detected a leak on previous visits. It responded to further reports in line with its repairs policy and appropriately arranged a further inspection. 

44. The resident cancelled the June 2023 appointment and told the landlord she had resolved the issue. The landlord closed the repair. As the landlord had failed to identify a leak during its inspections of the toilet, it was reasonable for it to close the order at this point.

45. The landlord’s response to the toilet leak was appropriate. It responded promptly and in line with its repairs policy. The landlord kept in regular contact with the resident. It completed precautionary work when it could not identify a leak and responded promptly to reports of further leaks. Overall, we believe the landlord’s response was reasonable and there was no service failure.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

46. The landlord’s complaint’s policy at the time of the resident’s complaint complied with the requirements set out in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Code as it included:

  1. A 2-stage complaint process.
  2. A specified acknowledgement timeframe of 5 working days.
  3. Stage 1 responses within 10 working days and stage 2 responses within 20 working days.

47. The landlord has not disputed that there were delays when it responded to the resident’s complaints. It apologised and awarded £50 compensation at both stage 1 and stage 2, along with an additional goodwill payment of £50, bringing the combined total to £150.

48. The landlord acknowledged the delays of 44 working days at stage 1 and 40 working days at stage 2. It identified that there was a service failure and offered compensation that was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The guidance states that awards between £50 and £100 are reasonable when there was a minor failure by the landlord. While there was a delay in issuing the complaint responses, this was not excessive. It is our opinion that the landlord’s total offer of compensation amounts to reasonable redress.

49. However, the landlord could have done more to address all issues raised by the resident in its stage 1 complaint. The resident had raised concerns regarding damage to her flooring and the handling of her stay in emergency accommodation. The stage 1 response issued by the landlord did not fully address these matters. It missed a chance to put things right and provide an early resolution. The landlord did however provide a response to these issues in its stage 2 response. While the time between the two complaint responses would have added to the frustration and stress experienced by the resident, the delay was not excessive.

50. The resident raised concerns on 27 April 2023 that the landlord had offset her stage 1 compensation against arrears on her rent account. She said that housing benefit covered her rent, and she could not control any delays in payment. The landlord’s compensation policy states that compensation will be paid directly onto the rent account if the account is in arrears. However, in its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that the resident had no control over the timing of housing benefit payments. Although it was entitled to apply the compensation to the rent account, it took steps to resolve the issue by awarding a £50 goodwill payment, which was paid directly to the resident. This was a reasonable response as the landlord recognised the impact on the resident and acted appropriately to put things right.

51. The resident requested permanent rehousing as a resolution to her complaint. The landlord explained in its complaint responses that the local authority is responsible for allocating properties. It confirmed that the resident should apply directly to the local authority and offered to help if needed. The landlord’s response was reasonable. It appropriately managed the resident’s expectations and offered help if the resident required this.

52. The landlord did not dispute that it failed to handle the resident’s complaint in line with its complaint policy. It apologised to the resident and offered a combined total of £150 in compensation, which included a £50 goodwill payment, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. It is our opinion that the landlord’s total offer of compensation amounts to reasonable redress.

Determination

53. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak from above, subsequent repairs, stay in temporary accommodation, and request for compensation.

54. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak from the toilet.

55. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter of its complaint handling.

Recommendations

56. If it has not already done so, the landlord must pay the resident the £250 compensation it offered during the complaints process. Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis this amount is paid.