Clarion Housing Association Limited (202409479)

Decision
Case ID	202409479
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Clarion Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing association
Occupancy	Shared ownership
Date	31 March 2026

Background

The resident lives in a first floor flat in a block with a communal lift. She complained about how the landlord dealt with lift repairs and her reports of a blocked drain in her bathroom.

What the complaint is about

The resident’s complaint is about how the landlord dealt with her reports of:
1. A fault with the communal lift.
2. A blocked drain in her bathroom
We have also considered how the landlord dealt with the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found there was reasonable redress by the landlord in how it dealt with the resident’s:
1. Report of a fault with the communal lift.
2. Report of a blocked drain in her bathroom.
3. Complaint.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

It was reasonable for the landlord to apologise for the short delay in repairing the lift after the report on 26 January 2024. It then acted to prevent future flood damage by moving wiring. It offered reasonable compensation for distress caused by its call handling failure.
The lease agreement makes it clear that internal drains are the resident’s responsibility. The landlord apologised for not communicating about responsibility for the repairs sooner and offered a reasonable amount of compensation for this.
The landlord did not meet the timescales in its complaints policy at stage 1 and 2 of the complaints process. However, it offered a reasonable amount of compensation for its failings.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations

We recommend the landlord contacts the resident to arrange a camera inspection of the internal pipes in her bathroom to look at whether the original fitting contributed to the reported blockages. Following this, we recommend it writes to the resident with its findings, setting out any recommendations from the inspection.

We recommend the landlord reoffers the £400 compensation for failings in how it dealt with repairs to the lift and drain and the complaint if it has not already paid it to the resident. We have made our finding of reasonable redress on the basis that the landlord makes this payment. We recommend the landlord pays this directly to the resident.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
9 February 2023	The landlord received a report about flooding in the pit of the lift shaft. On 13 February 2023, the resident told it that she had a blocked drain in her bathroom.
22 January 2024	The resident complained about how the landlord had dealt with the blocked drain and lift repairs. She said its call handler had used “derogatory” language when she called for an update on the lift repairs.
22 February 2024	In its complaint response, the landlord apologised for the delay in responding. On the drains, it said it had done repairs, but it said as a leaseholder, internal drains were her responsibility. It said it should have told her this sooner. On the lift, it apologised for the delay, which it accepted was a service failure. It said it had reviewed call recordings and apologised for the poor service. It offered £350 compensation.
5 March 2024	In her request to escalate her complaint, the resident said the compensation for call handling was derisory. She said the landlord had not considered the effect it had on her health. She asked why it was her responsibility to fix the drains when the installation in 2016 caused the problem. She said it had not resolved the problem with the lift.
24 April 2024	In its final complaint response, the landlord said work on internal drains was her responsibility under the lease agreement. On the lift, it said it had not been able to find the cause of the flooding and had arranged for a specialist survey to take place. It said it did not offer compensation for stress, anxiety, pain, and distress. It offered £50 compensation for the delayed complaint response.
Referral to the Ombudsman	In her escalation to us, the resident said the blocked drain was the landlord’s responsibility as the original installation caused the blockage. She said the comments from the call handler caused her upset and the compensation was not enough. She said the lift was now working.

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.

Complaint	How the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports of a fault with the communal lift
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we have not investigated

The resident said the way the landlord dealt with her caused stress, anxiety, and pain. Although we can consider whether it acted reasonably, we cannot assess whether its actions caused ill health. This is because we do not have the expertise to assess this, and these are legal aspects better suited to an insurance claim or court. While we are an alternative to the courts, we cannot prove legal liability or whether the landlord was responsible. However, we will consider how it responded to the resident’s concerns.

What we have investigated

The landlord’s repairs policy says an emergency repair is one that presents an immediate danger to the resident, the public, or the property. It says it will attend an emergency repair within 24 hours.
The landlord’s repairs records show it received a report that the lift was not working on 9 February 2023. It is unclear who reported the fault. It investigated the same day and found flooding in the lift shaft pit. It pumped the water out the next day.
There was a second lift fault caused by flooding on 31 March 2023. Again, it is unclear who reported the fault. The landlord’s final complaint response says it became aware of a lift fault during a visit on 31 March 2023. It said it arranged to pump water out, and the lift was working again on 5 April 2023. There appear to have been further faults with the lift on 13 and 24 September 2023, and 10 January 2024, when flooding was not the cause. On these occasions, the landlord’s records say the lift was out of action, respectively, for 8 days, 1 day, and 0 days.
Overall, the landlord appears to have dealt with the repairs to the lift, up to this time, in a reasonable way. Apart from 2 flood related breakdowns, other specific problems seem to have caused the faults. It appears to have responded as an emergency and, in most instances, repaired the lift quickly. We have not seen whether it investigated the cause of flooding after the events in February and March 2023. We have also not seen whether it communicated with residents about the lift faults.
On 27 January 2024 the resident complained about how the landlord had dealt with the most recent lift fault. She wanted this adding to her complaint about a blocked drain that she made on 22 January 2024. She said the lift was not working on the morning of 26 January 2024, so she phoned the landlord. She said she called it again that evening, and it told her it would send an electrician. She said at 3:33am on 27 January 2024, a drainage engineer called her, and she went out to meet him. She said the engineer said an alarm would be sounding if there was water in the lift pit. She said they could not hear an alarm through a locked door, so he said he would send a report, and left.
The resident said she called the landlord at 8:13am on 27 January 2024 for an update. It told her a drainage engineer would attend first. She said it had told her the day before, that an electrician would attend first. She said the landlord’s call handler then said, “you don’t know what you are talking about.” She said she was shocked and replied that he was “being derogatory”. She said the call handler then put the phone down on her, and the situation left her in tears.
The landlord’s records show it had arranged to pump water from the lift pit on 31 January 2023, but the contractor cancelled the appointment at short notice.
On 31 January 2024 the landlord wrote to residents in the block to apologise for the lift breakdown. It explained that it had arranged to pump water out on 2 February 2024 and after the electrics had dried out, it would attend on 5 February 2024 to assess damage. It said it was trying to find the cause of flooding and asked residents to report any leaks. It also asked them to let it know if they needed help. It is our view that this was a reasonable communication as it apologised, explained the situation, and asked residents to report any leaks and ask it if they needed help. Records show the landlord repaired the lift by 6 February 2024, which meant it was out of action for 12 days.
The landlord did further work on the lift between 7 and 26 February 2024, which included moving electrics in the lift pit to a higher level to protect against any future flooding. It said the lift was working during this time.
In its complaint response on 22 February 2024, the landlord said after the report of a fault on 26 January 2024, it raised an emergency order. It said after the visit in the early hours on 27 January 2023, it arranged for drainage contractors to attend. However, because of staffing issues, the contractor postponed the appointment. It said the water was pumped out a few days later, but it could not repair the lift until it dried out. It said it suspected a leak had caused the flood and had inspected individual properties but had not found the cause. It apologised for the delay in doing repairs.
It is our view that there was a minor failure in how the landlord dealt with repairs to the lift, which it apologised for. There was a 2-day delay because of a short notice cancellation by its contractor, which was outside its control. It was reasonable, because of safety concerns, for it to say the lift pit needed to dry out before it could do work on the electrics. However, following the report on 26 January 2026, it does not appear to have arranged for a contractor to pump out water until 31 January 2023. It is our view that this contributed to a short delay in repairing the lift.
On the way its call handler spoke to the resident, the landlord said in its complaint response that it had spoken with its call handling contractor, who had given it call recordings. It apologised for the poor service and said it could not share the outcome but assured her it took the matter seriously. It offered her £50 compensation for the inconvenience caused by poor call handling.
It is our view that this was a reasonable response. Although we have not seen evidence of communication between the landlord and its contractor on this issue, we accept that it could not share details of any action taken on staffing matters. The landlord offered £50 compensation for inconvenience, which was a reasonable amount as the matter related to an individual call. However, it is our view that this would be more appropriate if described as compensation for distress caused.
In her request to escalate her complaint on 5 March 2023, the resident said compensation offered for poor call handling was “derisory”. She said the call handler verbally abused her and the landlord had not considered her feelings of stress, anxiety, pain, and distress that she experienced since the call. She said the lift had been out of service on several occasions due to flooding, which meant she had to carry shopping up 2 flights of stairs, which was difficult due to an injury she had. She said it had not resolved the flooding problem and there was a risk of another breakdown.
In its final response on 24 April 2024, the landlord accepted the lift had been out of service on several occasions since March 2023. It said there had been different reasons, and it had responded to each of these. It said it had not found the cause of the flooding and because of this, it had arranged for a specialist survey to take place on 24 April 2024. On the call handling, it said it did not offer compensation for stress, anxiety, pain, and distress caused. It apologised for the inconvenience caused.
Overall, the landlord’s final response was reasonable. The resident referred to earlier lift breakdowns. However, some of these are unrelated to the flood problem in January 2024. It accepted there was a delay, which it apologised for. If it had acted sooner after the report on 26 January 2024, the time taken to complete the repairs could have been shortened by 2 or 3 days. However, the action taken to move the wiring was a sensible precaution.
On the call handling, we accept it could not give compensation for stress, anxiety, and pain, as it is unable to assess this through its complaint procedure. The landlord could have given the resident information on how to make a claim for personal injury. However, it did offer £50 compensation for poor call handling, which in our view is reasonable for the distress caused. Because of this we have found there was reasonable redress in how the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports of a fault with the communal lift.

Complaint	How the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports of a blocked drain
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we have not investigated

We have seen that the resident said the problem with the drains went back to when the property was built in 2016. She first complained about how the landlord dealt with a blocked drain in January 2024. We normally only investigate matters brought to the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which is usually 12 months. In this case, our investigation will limit its scope to the 12 months before the resident complained but may reference other events for context.

What we have investigated

The resident’s lease agreement with the landlord says she agrees to repair the interior of her home, including all water and sanitary apparatus. It says drains and pipes, except those that serve individual flats, are the landlord’s responsibility.
The landlord’s repairs records show that on 13 February 2023, while it was investigating the cause of flooding in the lift shaft, the resident told it that water was not draining from her bath. From the information that we have seen, it is unclear when the landlord attended. However, in its complaint response, it said its operative attended in March 2023 and replaced the u-bend underneath the bath.
It would be reasonable for the landlord to class the report as a non-emergency. Although the resident could not easily use the bath to bathe or shower, the situation did not present an immediate danger to her, the public, or the property. As we do not know the actual date when the landlord did the repair, we cannot assess whether it met its target of 28 days.
Following a further report from the resident of a slow draining bath on 24 July 2023, the landlord arranged a survey for 25 August 2023. Its records say it used a camera and found the soil pipe was in “good structural condition”, but there was a build-up of deposits. It recommended further tests. In its complaint response it said it left the drain flowing freely.
It is unclear from the information that we have seen whether it used a camera on internal pipes. We have seen no evidence that it followed up the recommendation or communicated it to the resident. We have also seen that the survey took place over a month after the report, which was outside its timescale for a non-emergency repair.
The resident reported a blocked bath for the third time on 28 November 2023. The landlord attended the same day and cleared a blockage caused by a build-up of hair. On 12 January 2024, the resident emailed the landlord and said she sent an email on 8 December 2023 following the call out in November 2023 but had not had a response. She said she phoned its repairs service on 17 January 2024 to report that there was still a problem, and she was waiting for a response.
On 19 January 2024 the landlord told the resident that although it attended on 28 November 2023, “technically” the blocked bath was her responsibility as a shared owner. It said its camera survey in July 2023 found no problems and as communal drains had not caused the blockage, further repairs inside her home were her responsibility.
The resident complained on 22 January 2025, that it took bath water 3 to 4 days to drain, which meant she could not shower or bathe. She said the pipe was either bowed, not bracketed in, or sitting on bricks. She said after several emails and calls, it had told her she was responsible for repairs.
In its complaint response on 22 February 2024, the landlord set out what it had done to deal with the reports of a slow draining bath since February 2023. It said it had told the resident in July 2023 that the problem was specific to her flat. It said after she reported a further problem in January 2024, it told her that internal drains were her responsibility. It apologised that it had not told her this sooner. It offered £250 compensation for the time taken to tell her this.
We have found that this was a reasonable response at this stage. The landlord did investigations and repairs following the report in February 2023. The original report appears to be linked to its investigations into a flood in the lift shaft. It then followed up further reports, which was its error. The lease agreement clearly says the resident is responsible for internal drains. The landlord accepted in its final response that it should have told her this sooner. It apologised and offered a reasonable amount of compensation for its communication failure.
In her request to escalate her complaint on 5 March 2024, the resident said the incorrect installation of the drains 16 years ago had caused the problem. She said the landlord was responsible for this.
In its final complaint response on 24 April 2024, the landlord accepted it should have made it clearer sooner that responsibility for internal drains was the resident’s responsibility under her lease agreement. It said it found no defects with the drains after the property was built.
Overall, we have found there was reasonable redress by the landlord in how it dealt with the resident’s reports of a blocked drain, for the reasons we have set out in paragraph 37. The resident said the problem was caused by a fault when the flats were built. As explained in paragraph 27, we are unable to investigate this. It is our view that the apology for not communicating its position sooner and the offer of compensation were reasonable in the circumstances.
However, in March 2026 the resident told us that after the landlord said the drains were her responsibility, she arranged for a plumber to inspect the bathroom drains using a camera. She has provided us with a report dated 6 February 2024, which says there are “too many changes of direction. I counted 9 in less than 2 meters”. We have made a recommendation on this.

Complaint	How the landlord dealt with the resident’s complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will then respond at stage 1 within 10 working days, and at stage 2 within 20 working days. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code.
The landlord received a complaint the resident had made through her MP on 22 January 2024. It acknowledged this on 30 January 2024. On 20 February 2024, it gave her an update apologising for the delay and said it would send a response in 2 days’ time. It sent its response on 22 February 2024 and offered £50 compensation for the delay. Although it was reasonable to give the resident an update and apologise for the delay, it did not do this until 16 working days after it acknowledged the complaint. This was already outside its response timescale at stage 1.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 5 March 2024. In its complaint acknowledgment on 2 April 2024, it said it did not receive the escalation request until 20 March 2024. The reasons for this are unclear. The landlord sent its final response on 24 April 2024, which was 7 weeks after the resident asked it to escalate her complaint. It apologised for the delay and offered £50 compensation.
Overall, we have found there was reasonable redress by the landlord in how it dealt with the resident’s complaint. Although it did not meet the timescales in its complaints policy at stage 1 and 2, it did offer £100 compensation for the delays, which is in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

The landlord should ensure it acknowledges and responds to all complaints in line with its complaints policy and our Complaint Handling Code.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s failings on drains related to it initially doing work that were not its responsibility. Its records should have made this clear. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management provides guidance that can help the landlord with this.

Communication

It was positive that the landlord wrote to affected residents about the lift fault and its plans for repairs in January 2024.