Clarion Housing Association Limited (202413104)

Background

1. The resident owns the property, a 1-bedroom third floor flat, and is a leaseholder of the landlord. He does not live in the property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress into the property.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress into the property
   2. there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The handling of the water ingress

5. The landlord did not carry out inspections and repairs in line with its repairs policy. Its failure to promptly arrange the necessary specialist equipment protracted the repairs process and it failed to follow through with commitments it made to the resident. While it did eventually complete repairs and offer appropriate redress, it took too long to do this.

The complaint handling

6. The landlord delayed responding to the complaint in line with its policies and procedures and did not fully acknowledge its failings until after we became involved.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not consider

7. The resident told the landlord he had been chasing repairs to an external wall since 2019. We don’t investigate complaints that a resident did not raise with the landlord within a reasonable period. So, we have only considered the landlord’s actions in relation to the reports of water ingress during the 12 months leading up to the resident raising the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of water ingress

8. In February 2023 the landlord told the resident it would be booking a surveyor and any necessary follow-on works after he reported water ingress into his property. It has provided no evidence that it followed up with this until the resident reported the issue again in November 2023, which was not appropriate.
9. On 3 November 2023, following contact from the resident, the landlord raised a new job to check for water ingress. Its records show that it tried to visit on 19 December 2023 but was unable to gain access. The resident does not live in the property and the landlord has provided no evidence it prearranged this appointment with him, or tried to rearrange it, which was not appropriate.
10. The landlord visited the property on 20 February 2024. It did not carry out this visit in line with its policy timescale for non-emergency repairs of 28 days. It was unable to carry out work on this visit as it needed scaffolding or a cherry picker to access the roof. However, it incorrectly closed this job and took no further action, which was not reasonable.
11. On 18 March 2024 the resident told the landlord that the damp was causing the plaster to blister and black mould was growing on the walls. In its stage 1 response of 27 March 2024 the landlord said that no mould had been present when it had previously visited and it did not offer to reinspect or take any action about this mould, which was not appropriate.
12. The landlord said that there had been delay in it acting due to an administration error and that it had no records of it booking in follow-up work following the resident’s reports in January 2023. This demonstrated poor record-keeping. However, the landlord did say that it had carried out additional training with the staff involved, which was a positive step.
13. The landlord said work was due to start on 21 May 2024. It said it had been unable to book the work earlier due to budgetary and staff resources. This start date was not in line with its repairs policy and this was not a reasonable explanation for its failure to carry out work within a reasonable timeframe. It offered the resident £250 for its poor communication. Given that it had been more than a year since the resident reported the water ingress, this offer was not proportionate to its failings.
14. An operative of the landlord attended on 21 May 2024 but said they needed a cherry picker to carry out an inspection and work. It is unclear whether they carried out any work at this visit. However, it was not appropriate for the landlord to arrange this visit without the necessary equipment it already knew it needed.
15. The landlord’s operative attended with a cherry picker on 28 August 2024 and carried out an inspection and repairs. This was 6 months after it had identified this equipment was needed, which represented an unreasonable delay. In its stage 2 response of 23 September 2024 the landlord said it had raised a further job to inspect the inside of the property on 26 September 2024. This was a further unreasonable delay, given how long the resident had already been waiting.
16. In its response, the landlord acknowledged that its explanation at stage 1 about budgetary and staff resources was not acceptable and it offered an additional £250 compensation in relation to this. However, it failed to recognise the further repair delays since its stage 1, which was not appropriate.
17. The landlord provided the resident with details for its leasehold insurance and told him he could make a claim for damaged plaster and loss of rent. This was reasonable, but it should have provided this information at stage 1 to allow him to start this process sooner.
18. In October 2024, following further visits to the property, the landlord found that water was still getting into the property. This was because holes had not been filled following the retrofitting of cavity wall insulation. The landlord’s records show it wanted to carry out some further investigation in November 2024, but the resident was not keen for it to do this in case it caused more damage.
19. The landlord completed this investigation work on 19 December 2024 and filled the holes. It has told us that the resident has not reported any further issues since. Since the resident contacted us, the landlord wrote the resident on 30 June 2025 following a review of its handling of the repairs. It said it was satisfied work had now rectified the external issues but that there was internal work it would still like to complete. It asked him to contact a named member of staff to arrange this, which was reasonable. It also said it had not adequately compensated him for its service failures.
20. The landlord offered the resident additional compensation of £500 to recognise the communication failures and delays and £250 as a contribution to internal decorative repairs. Its total offer of £1,250 is proportionate to its failures and in line with our remedies guidance, and so we have not made an order for additional compensation. However, the landlord should have fully considered its failings, and compensated accordingly, during its internal complaints process. It is not appropriate that it did not do this until we were involved.

21. As can be seen from above:
    1. the landlord responded at stage 1 within 26 working days (20 February 2024 to 27 March 2024) – which was not in line with its complaints policy
    2. the landlord took 59 working days (from 2 July 2024 to 23 September 2024) to respond at stage 2 – which again was not in line with its complaints policy
22. In both its responses the landlord apologised for the delays. At stage 2 it kept the resident updated when it was unable to provide a response in the timeframe it had set out. In its correspondence of 30 June 2025, the landlord offered the resident an additional £100 to recognise its failure to address its complaint handling failures at stage 1.
23. This brought its total offer of compensation for complaint handling to £175. As with its compensation offer for the water ingress issue, this amount is in line with our remedies guidance, and so we have not made an order for additional compensation.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. The landlord did not keep good records of inspections and work carried out in January 2023, leading to no follow-up work being scheduled. It acknowledged this in its complaint responses and has already taken action to rectify this.

Communication

25. The landlord’s records do now show that its overall communication was good. It did not keep the resident regularly updated throughout the repairs process, relying instead on the resident to chase it for updates. It should be more proactive in keeping its residents updated while investigations and repairs are ongoing.