Clarion Housing Association Limited (202426879)

A blue and grey text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202426879

Clarion Housing Association Limited

21 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. reports of an uneven bathroom floor.
2. complaint.
This report has also assessed the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The resident in an assured tenant in a one-bedroom flat, which she has occupied since May 2015. The landlord is aware that she has physical vulnerabilities and a learning disability, and that she has a support worker. She is represented in her complaint by a family member who, for the purposes of this report, will be referred to as Mr J.
Mr J wrote to the landlord on 5 January 2023 to say that water was collecting near the resident’s toilet when she showered. He stated that this posed a potential slip hazard. He added that the toilet seat was also in need of repair along with some of the internal doors, which no longer closed properly. On 12 January 2023 the landlord responded to say that it had arranged an appointment and that its contractor would contact the resident to agree a date and time.
Mr J contacted the landlord several times in February and March 2023 for an update on the repair. On 15 May 2023 he raised a formal complaint on behalf of the resident stating that:
1. the contractor had arranged to carry out the bathroom repairs on 28 March 2023. However, when he visited the resident, he discovered they had still not been completed.
2. he had not received a copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement despite having requested it.
3. he had been told on numerous occasions by the contractor that the repairs would be carried out and had spent “considerable time” chasing them up.
4. the resident had a learning disability, and he had been reporting the “dangerous state” of her bathroom for the previous 9 months.
On 8 June 2023 the landlord wrote to Mr J to ask him to clarify whether his complaint was about a leak from the resident’s bathroom to the area below, or a “shower and toilet repair”. Mr J responded on the same day to say that the issue was that the bathroom floor was uneven, causing water to pool around the toilet. He reiterated that this was a “slip hazard” and that he had been reporting the matter since January 2023.
The landlord sent Mr J its stage 1 response, which stated that:
1. its investigation found that, in January 2023, the resident had reported a leak coming from her shower and going into the boiler room below. This was the first report it had received regarding her bathroom.
2. an operative attended on the same day and advised that there was “no visible leak” from the bathroom. They applied silicone to the corners of the vinyl flooring but could not see any means of water passing down onto the roof of the car park below.
3. in February 2023 it had received another report, this time about water pooling around the toilet in the resident’s bathroom.
4. its contractor was due to attend within the following 2 days to investigate and address the:
  1. uneven floor in the shower area.
  2. broken toilet seat.
  3. internal doors not closing properly.
  4. balcony door not locking.
5. it was sorry for the misunderstanding around the complaint issue and delay in resolving the issue of water pooling in the bathroom.
6. it wanted to offer the resident £300 compensation broken down as:
  1. £250 in recognition of the delay in completing repairs “within an adequate timescale” between January and June 2023.
  2. £50 for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint.
7. some repairs could take “a little longer” due to the need for follow on works. However, it acknowledged this should be communicated to resident at the time.
On 14 August 2023 Mr J wrote to the landlord to escalate the resident’s complaint. He stated that it had failed to assess and complete repairs within a reasonable time. He added that:
1. the landlord had still not completed the repairs to the shower and toilet “promised” for March 2023.
2. he had received a text that day advising him that operatives would be attending in the morning. Due to her disability, the resident needed advance notice of any appointments as she needed to arrange assistance from support staff. The short notice was “unacceptable” and would likely result in a missed opportunity to complete the repairs.
3. he had been reporting the “dangerous state” of the resident’s bathroom floor for 9 months.
4. he had still not received a copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement.
The landlord acknowledged Mr J’s request on 21 August 2023. On 18 October 2023, it notified him that it needed more time to investigate. It issued its stage 2 response on 24 November 2023 and stated that:
1. it had brought its repair service in-house as its repairs contract with its contractor had ended on 31 July 2023. As a result, its available repair history was “limited” but it was “keen” to ensure a “smooth” transition for its residents.
2. it acknowledged that it had not raised repairs to the resident’s shower and toilet until 9 May 2023.
3. it had attached a copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement and apologised for not sending after receiving his stage 1 complaint.
4. it acknowledged Mr J’s time and trouble chasing the repairs on behalf of the resident and that it had failed to assess and complete works within a reasonable timeframe.
5. it agreed it had failed to act on information on how to manage notifications of visits and repairs. It apologised for the inconvenience caused when it let him know of the repair appointment at short notice.
6. it confirmed that it would carry out work to:
  1. replace the bathroom floor, which it had scheduled for 10 November 2023.
  2. fit a bi-fold shower door to contain water within the shower area.
  3. fit kick plates to the bathroom door.
7. it had completed the repair to the balcony door.
8. it wanted to make an increased offer of £1,100 compensation broken down as:
  1. the £300 it had offered at stage 1.
  2. £600 for the delay in completing repairs to the shower and toilet.
  3. £50 for the time and trouble taken to chase the repairs.
  4. £50 for the failure to act on information on how to manage visits and repair notifications.
  5. £50 for its failure to properly consider the resident’s vulnerabilities.
  6. £50 for the delay issuing its stage 2 response.

Events following the conclusion of the complaints process

On 27 February 2024 Mr J contacted the landlord to say that it had still not completed the works it had set out in its stage 2 response. He stated that the resident was “unsteady on her feet” and water still pooled on her bathroom floor making it slippery. The landlord replaced the bathroom floor on 21 March 2024. On 18 October 2024 it inspected the bathroom and reported that the shower was “draining well”. It recommended installation of a “disabled wet room shower screen” to keep the water contained within the shower area.
Mr J contacted the Ombudsman on 11 February 2025. He said that the landlord had still not completed the works it had “promised” to make safe the bathroom. On 26 March 2024 the landlord told us it had still not fitted the shower door but had carried out an inspection on 25 March 2025. It added that it had offered the resident a further £800 compensation for the delay in completing this repair. Mr J told us on 15 May 2025 that the landlord was due to install the shower door on 12 May 2025 but had not informed him whether this had been done. He added that water from the bathroom had run into other parts of the property and was causing damage to the laminate flooring.

Assessment and findings

Uneven bathroom floor

The landlord’s repairs policy differentiates between emergency and non-emergency repairs. Emergency repairs should be attended to within 24 hours, and non-emergency repairs 28 calendar days.
The landlord is obliged to ensure the property is habitable and free from the risk of any falls associated with a bath, shower or similar facility. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), used by local authorities when assessing hazards and risks in a property, says that “the main cause of falls in bathrooms is slipping when getting into or out of the bath. The slip resistance of the internal surfaces of baths and showers when wet will affect the likelihood of an incidence occurring”. Therefore, landlords should take preventative measures to reduce the risk of falls due to wet bathroom surfaces.
Landlords have a legal obligation to complete repairs they are responsible for within a ‘reasonable’ timescale. Various factors can affect what constitutes a reasonable timescale, such as volume and complexity of required work or the need for additional parts to be ordered and delivered. The landlord should be able to demonstrate that any delays were unavoidable, and that it did everything it reasonably could to resolve issues appropriately.
The records show that Mr J first reported a potential slip hazard in the resident’s bathroom on 5 January 2023. He suggested that this was due to an uneven floor, which was causing water to collect around the toilet when the resident took a shower.
The evidence shows that the landlord had agreed to carry out works to the bathroom in March 2023, which was when it told Mr J they would take place. However, the repairs did no go ahead at this time. The reason for this is unclear and there is no record the landlord provided the resident or Mr J with an explanation.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on ‘Attitudes, Respect, and Rights’, published in January 2024 states that landlords must recognise that the failure to deliver a routine service can act as the catalyst for a prolonged period of service failure. Because of the presence of vulnerabilities, this can become more complex to resolve and result in more detriment to the resident.
The evidence shows that it was not until 21 March 2024 that the landlord fitted a new floor in the bathroom. This was over 14 months after Mr J’s initial report, and nearly 4 months after the landlord had issued its stage 2 response. It is unclear why the landlord could not have completed the work sooner, and whether it was because it had brought its repairs service in-house. It has not provided any records to explain the reasons for the delays, which is evidence of poor record keeping. In addition, it failed to provide any reasonable explanation for those delays in its complaint responses. It could therefore not demonstrate that they were unavoidable, which was a significant departure from its repairs policy of completing non-emergency repairs within 28 days.
The stage 2 response set out a number of repairs that it would complete as part of the resolution to the resident’s complaint. These included the installation of a disabled shower door to contain water within the shower area. The landlord has not provided any records or inspection reports to indicate when this repair was first recommended. It was appropriate that the landlord was taking steps to resolve the issue of pooling water. However, this was nearly a year after the resident had first reported the problem. Furthermore, it should not have been necessary for the resident to have made a complaint before the landlord took appropriate action.
The stage 2 response did not specify a date by which it planned to install the shower door. However, the landlord told us on 26 March 2025 that this work had still not been completed. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords to track any actions outlined in complaint responses through to completion. Although the reason for the delay is unclear, it was unreasonable that the landlord could not demonstrate it tracked the repair. We note that the landlord made the resident a further offer of compensation in recognition of the ongoing delay, which was appropriate. However, we will order it to ensure it tells Mr J, as her advocate, when it plans to fit the shower door, and provide him with an explanation of why it could not have completed the work sooner.
The landlord cannot demonstrate it took reasonable steps to minimise its delays in completing the outstanding repairs, or to properly monitor them. This left the resident with the ongoing risk of a possible fall for an excessive amount of time.
Once put on notice that there was a risk to the resident from a slippery bathroom floor, the landlord ought to have arranged a prompt inspection. It could then have assessed the risks to both the resident and property. If could also have identified what steps it could take to ensure it addressed and resolved any possible hazards. That it had not properly recognised the urgency of the matter or the resident’s vulnerabilities was a failing. This would have caused her ongoing discomfort and anxiety when using her bathroom. Furthermore, Mr J told us that, as a result of the landlord’s inaction, water from the shower was going into other parts of the property, such as the landing and bedroom, causing damage to the laminate flooring.
The spotlight report also states that a reasonable adjustment means a change to service provision that seeks to, as far as possible, remove any disadvantage faced by those with a protected characteristic or a vulnerability. These should be anticipated, as well as reactive. Landlords should move to a ‘human-centric’ model of service provision where they respond to a vulnerable person’s individual needs and circumstances.
It is evident the landlord was slow to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities, or any adjustments it could make. It should have taken reasonable steps to ensure she was not unfairly disadvantaged while waiting for a permanent solution to the problem. It is also evident the resident’s independence was impacted by the landlord’s failure to address the slip hazard in the bathroom within a reasonable time.
The records indicate that there were no grab rails in the bathroom. It would have been reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to have considered whether an occupational therapy assessment would have been appropriate. This would have identified any appropriate aids and/or adaptations that would have minimised the risk from the wet floor. That the landlord did not take reasonable steps to account for the resident’s vulnerabilities at an earlier stage was a significant failure.
The landlord must ensure there is effective internal communication between its teams and departments, and that one individual or team has overall responsibility for ensuring complaints or reports are resolved, including follow up or aftercare. There is no evidence of any effective contract monitoring by the landlord to ensure its contractors were providing a service that was in line with the repairs policy of completing repairs within 28 days. Furthermore there is no indication the contractor was communicating regularly and effectively with the resident.
The landlord provided limited records of communication with the resident or Mr J. It therefore could not demonstrate it made reasonable efforts to provide them with regular updates, provide accurate completion dates or to keep them reasonably informed. The evidence shows they were consistently left to contact the landlord themselves for up-to-date information. This suggests they took unnecessary time and trouble to try and progress the outstanding repairs, which should not have been necessary given the landlord’s obligations.
Furthermore, the records indicate that the landlord did not act on information from Mr J regarding notifying the resident about visits and repairs. We have not seen the request Mr J made to the landlord. However, it acknowledged that it had not acted on the information he had provided. The lack of advanced notice caused unnecessary inconvenience to the resident and limited her ability to make prior arrangements with her support worker.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on repairs published in March 2019 states that landlords need to ensure they have adequate oversight of their outsourced services. Furthermore, landlords should monitor the progress of repairs and have accessible records of appointments, inspection reports, work orders and completion dates.
The landlord has not provided contemporaneous records of communications with its contractor to demonstrate it was taking reasonable steps to chase it up or rearrange appointments. Neither the landlord’s stage 1 or 2 responses were able to establish the reason why the works were not completed in March 2023 as originally planned. This suggests poor coordination and information sharing between the landlord and its contractor.
We recognise the landlord may have had some challenges with its contractor. However, there are no records to show the landlord considered appointing a specific team to take overall responsibility for co-ordinating the repairs. This could have helped ensure outstanding repairs were properly tracked, completed in a timely manner, and that the resident was properly updated.
The landlord stated in its stage 2 response that, on 31 July 2023, it had ended its contract with its repair contractor, and brought its service in-house. Although this is noted, the landlord should take all necessary steps to ensure internal issues do not impact on the services provided to residents. It has not demonstrated it took adequate steps to minimise any disruption. Its lack of any effective repair management and failure to put any contingency planning in place meant it failed to take reasonable steps to keep delays to a minimum. This would have impacted on the resident’s confidence that any works would take place, or that the risks in her bathroom would be addressed. This likely caused her significant frustration and distress as a result.

Conclusion

In response to Mr J’s report of an unsafe bathroom floor, the landlord failed to:
1. carry out a timely inspection to assess the risk to the resident and identify any necessary repairs.
2. complete works in March 2023 after informing the resident it would do so or provide an explanation of why they did not go ahead.
3. take reasonable account of the resident’s vulnerabilities or her safety.
4. carry out works to the bathroom within a reasonable amount of time.
5. communicate delays or provide updates to the resident or Mr J.
6. track the actions outlined in its stage 2 complaint response through to completion.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: “Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes”. We apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified.
The landlord acknowledged the delays in completing repairs and its failure to recognise the resident’s vulnerabilities. Furthermore, it offered her a total of £300 compensation in its stage 1 response, which it increased to £1,100 at stage 2. This included £100 for poor complaint handling. Although the landlord’s attempts to put things right are noted, it failed to provide a proper apology for its failings or to give details on how it would learn lessons from the complaint. Although it gave the resident a commitment in its stage 2 complaint to fit a new bathroom floor in November 2023, it did not complete this work until 21 March 2024.
We consider the landlord’s offer of redress falls short of fully recognising the impact on the resident of the excessive delays in taking any action, and the associated risk of an unsafe bathroom floor. This resulted in the resident’s loss of enjoyment of her bathroom for a period of 14 months, while waiting for any repairs to be done. The landlord did not adequately consider the potential risk to the resident, her vulnerabilities or the fact its communication was consistently poor. It also failed to take sufficient account of the time and trouble the resident took to chase the outstanding repairs and pursue her complaint. Due to the impact these cumulative failings would have had on her, the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration and will order further redress.
The resident has paid approximately £500 per month (taking account some annual incremental increases) in rental payments during the period of the landlord’s maladministration. We can reasonably consider this to have started in January 2023, which was when the resident first reported the issue. This is also the start of the period on which this investigation focused. The Ombudsman considers that, in the circumstances, it is appropriate for the landlord to pay compensation in recognition of the amount of time that the landlord took to replace the bathroom floor.
Taking into account the rent paid by the resident over the period, we consider it appropriate for the landlord to pay £1,750 compensation for the impact on the resident of being unsafe in her bathroom for 14 months. This figure has been calculated as approximately 25% of the total rent during the period in question. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that this is not a precise calculation, this is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all of the circumstances into account.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy states that it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of acknowledgement and provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
The Code states that, where landlords have to extend a response beyond a further 10 working days for stage 1, and 20 for stage 2, it must not do so without good reason. It must clearly explain its reasons for an extension to the resident.
The landlord took 10 working days to acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint, and 19 working days to respond. It took 74 working days to respond at stage 2. In all cases, it responded beyond the timescales as set out in its complaints policy.
Although it sent the resident a holding letter prior to issuing its stage 2 response, it sent this 48 days after she had raised her complaint. Given its timescale for responding to stage 2 complaints is 20 working days, it should have advised the resident that there would be a delay before this period had elapsed. The holding response did not provide a clear revised timeframe for when it would issue its response. Furthermore, despite further delays, there is no indication the landlord made any further contact with the resident to update her on its progress. This was a failing.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 September 2023 to explain that it had taken longer than expected to allocate his stage 2 complaint due to “higher customer contact”. We acknowledge there can sometimes be challenges in responding within timescales, particularly during busy periods. It is also important that landlords carry out thorough investigations and we acknowledge these can sometimes take longer than expected to complete.
However, landlords should always ensure they adequately communicate any potential delays to their residents. This will help maintain transparency, along with a positive working relationship between the landlord and resident throughout the process. It will also help reassure residents they have not been forgotten about. That it failed to adequately inform the resident of delays or agree new timescales was a departure both from the Code and its policy. This would have caused her additional and avoidable frustration.
We note that the landlord stated in its stage 1 response that the first report it had received about water pooling around the toilet was in February 2023. This is incorrect. Its records state that it had received a report from Mr J on 5 January 2023. Furthermore, in its stage 2 response dated 24 November 2023 it told the resident it would fit a new bathroom floor on 10 November 2023. There is no indication it had checked whether the work had been completed prior to issuing its response. The landlord therefore failed to check its own information to verify correct dates, or to ensure the information it was giving was accurate. This would have caused the resident unnecessary confusion. The landlord should always ensure its responses are properly checked before issuing them to avoid providing inaccurate information.
Mr J had clarified to the landlord that the resident’s complaint related to pooling of water around the resident’s toilet, which posed the risk of a fall. Despite this, much of its stage 1 response focussed on an unrelated matter, which the resident had not raised as part of her complaint. Although well intentioned, the landlord should always ensure it establishes the scope of its investigation at the outset and focuses on the relevant issues to avoid any confusion.
The landlord acknowledged its delays in responding to both stage 1 and 2 complaints. It offered the resident £100 in its stage 2 response in recognition of this, which was part of its overall offer of £1,100. It is appropriate that the landlord took steps to put things right and we recognise this. However, due to the length it time the landlord took to issue its stage 2 response and its poor communication, we cannot consider that it had offered reasonable redress. The Ombudsman has therefore made a finding of service failure. We will order it to pay the resident an increased amount of £200 in recognition of its poor complaint handling and the impact of this on the resident.

Record keeping

The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about repairs, published in March 2019, states that “it is vital landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. The landlord and its contractors should keep comprehensive records of residents’ reports of outstanding repairs and their responses, including details of appointments, any pre- and post-inspections, surveyors’ reports, work carried out and completion dates”.
In addition, the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on ‘Knowledge and Information Management’ (KIM) states that, “the failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress”.
The evidence that the landlord provided in response to our initial request for information, is lacking in detail. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, as this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure the landlord has a good understanding of the progress of ongoing repairs at any given time to be able to provide updates to residents. Records also enable outstanding repairs and complaints to be monitored and provide an audit trail of actions, including any delays that were outside of its control. Effective record keeping means landlords are also able to carry out effective investigations when things go wrong.
Contemporaneous records of telephone calls and written correspondence between the landlord and resident were very limited. Furthermore, the landlord provided no records of correspondence with its contractor during the period when the resident was waiting for repairs to be completed.
The landlord’s poor record keeping would have contributed to its poor repairs management. It would have also contributed to the landlord’s poor communication and lack of updates. The Ombudsman has taken this into account when reaching the overall finding that there was service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of an uneven bathroom floor.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. apologise to the resident in line with our guidance on making apologies. The apology should come from a senior member of staff.
2. pay the resident £1,950 compensation calculated as:
  1. £1,750 in recognition of the loss of enjoyment of her bathroom for 14 months, while waiting for the landlord to take action to make her bathroom floor safe.
  2. £200 in recognition of its poor complaint handling and the distress and inconvenience caused as a result.
3. this replaces the offer of £1,100 compensation it made in its stage 2 response. If it has already paid this to the resident, it should offset this against the total compensation awarded by us.
4. contact the resident and/or Mr J with a date on which it will complete the outstanding repairs, set out in its stage 2 response. It must also give them a clear explanation of why it was unable to complete these sooner, and reasons for the delay.
5. inspect the property for any water damage to the resident’s laminate flooring. If there has been damage caused by the landlord’s delay completing outstanding bathroom repairs, it should consider what steps to take to resolve this, such as replacement of damaged flooring.
6. confirm to us that it has taken the above mentioned actions.
Within 8 weeks of receiving this determination the landlord must review its complaint training to staff, with emphasis on ensuring all complaints are followed up correctly and properly tracked. The training should stress the importance of following the landlord’s complaints process, providing timely responses and communicating appropriately with residents whenever there are likely to be delays. It should also emphasise the importance of checking complaint responses for accuracy prior to issuing them. The landlord must share the outcome of its review with us within the timescale mentioned above.
Within 12 weeks of receiving this determination, the landlord must carry out a review of the failings identified in its response to the resident’s reports, paying particular attention to her vulnerabilities. This should explore:
1. how the landlord failed to consider the resident’s particular needs or to appropriately alert its contractors of those needs.
2. how the landlord could more effectively prioritise vulnerable residents when they report repairs, paying particular attention to any safety concerns if repairs are delayed.
3. whether the formulation of a policy/procedure is required that covers responding to residents’ vulnerabilities.
The landlord should provide a copy of the final report to its governing body for scrutiny. It must also provide copy of the report to us within 12 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendation

The landlord should review its record keeping for the issues investigated in this report. To assist it in doing this it may wish to consult the recommendations in our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.