Clarion Housing Association Limited (202441230)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202441230

Clarion Housing Association Limited

30 June 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 handling of the resident’s concerns about the water quality at the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and has occupied the property, a 3-bedroom house, since September 2021. The resident’s disabled adult son also resides at the property 3 days a week. The resident has vulnerabilities that are known to the landlord.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 7 March 2023. She said she was concerned that black and green mould was coming out of the taps and toilet cistern in the property. She said she had reported her concerns to the landlord for over a year, but the issue was still unresolved.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 23 March 2023. It provided a timeline of events (from December 2021) and said:
1. It was unable to identify any service failings in its handling of the repair. This was because all reports had been attended to within its target timescales. However, it acknowledged that it had attended the property on numerous occasions regarding the same issue.
2. In recognition of the inconvenience it had caused the resident, it offered her £400 compensation.
3. It had made a referral to its heating contractor to “eliminate” any potential hot water issues.
The resident raised another stage 1 complaint on 5 April 2024. She said that despite the landlord visiting her property on several occasions, the water quality issues were not resolved. She told the landlord that she was concerned about drinking the water from the taps in the property.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 5 June 2024. It provided a timeline of events (between June 2022 and March 2023) and said it was unable to identify any service failings. This was because it had carried out the necessary repairs “within [its] remit”. It offered the resident £50 compensation for its complaint handling delays. The resident requested to escalate her complaint the same day.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 30 September 2024. It provided a timeline of events (from June 2024 onwards) and said:
1. It acknowledged there were “several communication failures” in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the water quality dating back to 2022.
2. It offered the resident an additional £900 compensation (not including the £450 it had offered previously) for the inconvenience it had caused. It said £800 of its offer was “discretionary”, and £100 was in recognition of the delays in its stage 2 complaint handling.
3. Following visits to the property (in July and September 2024) by its water specialist contractor, it was awaiting the results of the post-treatment water samples. It would update the resident on the outcome and next steps when it received the results.

Events after the end of the complaints process

On 30 September 2024, the water specialist informed the landlord that the recent water sample taken from the property had confirmed that pseudomonas (a type of bacteria) was present. The specialist contractor recommended that the resident drink bottled water until a risk survey could be completed.
On 27 May 2025, the landlord offered the resident an additional £3,000 in compensation for its handling of the substantive issue.
On 2 June 2025, the landlord decanted the resident from the property for approximately 2 weeks. During this period, the landlord replaced the internal pipework in the property. At the time of our investigation, further water testing was due to be carried out at the end of July 2025, to confirm if the most recent works had resolved the water quality issue.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Our investigation will consider the landlord’s handling of the substantive issue from November 2021. This is because the landlord has also considered the events that occurred from this time within its formal complaint responses and in its offer of compensation. However, as the case involves multiple issues over the course of several years and there has been a high level of communication, it has not been possible to detail and assess every event within this report.
The resident has described how she feels the landlord’s handling of the repairs has negatively impacted on her physical and mental health. While this Service does not doubt or underestimate the resident’s concerns, it is outside our remit to determine the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.f of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints concerning matters where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure. This matter is best suited for investigation through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim.
The resident informed us that the landlord arranged to have her belongings moved into storage while the remedial works were undertaken to the property in June 2025. She said that when the landlord returned the items, many items of furniture were damaged, including her fridge. Any new issues that the resident has raised since the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response will not be considered as part of this investigation. This is accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Scheme, which states that we may not investigate complaints that are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. If the resident is unhappy with how the landlord has dealt with such issues, she may choose to make a further complaint about this matter. She may then refer this to this Service for separate investigation if she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response.

Concerns about water quality

The landlord has an obligation under the tenancy agreement and the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) in respect of the water supply. This is limited to the supply of water after delivery to the dwelling and is concerned with water for drinking, cooking, washing, cleaning, and sanitation.
At the time of the resident’s initial reports, the landlord had a water safety management policy, which concerned the risk management of legionella bacteria and scalding. The policy stipulated that water management operations staff had a duty to arrange independent testing of water systems in the event of a suspected or identified legionella outbreak.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it aims to ensure repairs are carried out in a timely and efficient manner. Emergency repairs (anything that poses an immediate risk to safety, security, or health) will be attended to within 24 hours. Non-emergency repairs will be completed as soon as possible, and within 28 days.
Within the landlord’s stage 1 response (March 2023), it provided the resident with a timeline of events that occurred in relation to her concerns about the water quality in the property. However, throughout our investigation it appeared that its repair records did not provide the evidence to support numerous aspects of its narrative of the case. Some of these examples have been highlighted within this section of the report. While the resident has not disputed that the landlord attended the property for the repairs, the level of evidence available has made it difficult for us to make an assessment of these aspects of the case. This is indicative of poor record keeping and we will take this into consideration when making our determination on the case.
The resident first reported her concerns to the landlord about the quality of the water in the property on 18 November 2021. She also made a further report on 10 February 2022. She said that slime emerged from the cold-water taps and when she flushed the toilet black dirt appeared in the toilet pan. It is understandable that the presence of any debris within the water supply would have caused the resident some distress.
The landlord’s repair records show that repair appointments were appropriately scheduled in line with the timescales outlined in its repairs policy. However, the records do not confirm the dates it attended the property or provide any clarity on the action taken during the appointments. It is noted that within the landlord’s stage 1 response (March 2023) it said that it attended on both occasions, and there was “no evidence of water contamination”.
On 1 June 2022, the resident reported that the bathroom tap water was still “black and slimy” and it was “not drinkable”. The landlord appropriately scheduled an appointment for 13 June 2022. On the day of the appointment, the resident cancelled the repair. This was because she had arranged for the local water supplier to take water samples from the property. She said that she would provide the landlord with an update and forward any recommendations from the supplier when she received the results.
On 16 June 2022, the resident informed the landlord that the water supplier had recommended that it undertake a chemical wash of the water tank to prevent the black slime from occurring. Within the landlord’s stage 1 response (March 2023), it said that it had undertaken the chemical flush as requested, but did not state what date. From the evidence provided by the landlord, it is also not clear when this was completed. This is a further record keeping failure.
The resident contacted the landlord on 12 July 2022 to report a repair. She said that the water in the toilet was filling slowly, and black slime was coming out the taps. A note was added to the landlord’s internal records that questioned whether “the water tank [could] be contaminated”. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that at this point, the landlord had not undertaken the chemical flush treatment that had been recommended by the water supplier.
The landlord appropriately arranged an appointment for 5 working days later (on 19 July 2022). In the landlord’s stage 1 response (March 2023), it said it replaced the wash hand basin taps during the appointment in July. However, from the evidence provided, it is not clear what date it attended, and what work was undertaken during the appointment. The importance of effective repair record keeping is again highlighted.
On 20 September 2022, the resident informed the landlord that the issue with “contaminated water” was still ongoing, and she asked it to clean out the hot water tank. The evidence suggests that the landlord was due to attend the property 26 September 2022, but it is not clear if the appointment went ahead on this date. It is noted that within the landlord’s stage 1 response (March 2023), it said that it did not find any “debris” in the cold-water storage tank (CWST), but it was suggested that the hot water cylinder may have been venting into the CWST, and it therefore turned down the thermostat on the hot water cylinder.
The landlord raised another repair on 12 October 2022. Its repair records stated that the resident reported “black sludge” was still running into the toilet pan and from the taps. Within the landlord’s stage 1 response (March 2023) it said that the operative who attended “in October 2022” noted that the water was clear in the toilet cistern but cleaned under the rim and bowl with mould wash. It said that it also removed the diffusers from the basin taps, which were clean “other than limescale around the edge”, and the water was running clear. Again, we have seen no documentary evidence of this appointment, which is a further record keeping failure.
On 11 January 2023, the tenant told the landlord that the issue with the taps and toilet was still unresolved. The records show the landlord scheduled an appointment for 21 February 2023. This timescale of 42 days was inappropriate, as it exceeded the timescales outlined in the landlord’s repairs policy (28 days). The evidence suggests that the landlord attended the property on 2 further occasions between 21 February 2023 and 7 March 2023. Again, it is not clear what work was undertaken during these appointments.
The landlord attended the property on 29 March 2023. The landlord’s internal records show that during the appointment, it found “black and dirty water coming from the bathroom taps and toilet”. The following day (30 March 2023), the landlord raised a repair to replace the water tank in the property. This was appropriate and showed that it was taking reasonable steps to resolve the issue for the resident.
On 7 April 2023, the resident contacted the landlord for an update on the water tank replacement. We have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to her, which was inappropriate, and the importance of effective communication is highlighted.
The landlord attended the property on 20 April 2023. This was appropriate as it was within the timescales outlined in its repairs policy. During the appointment, the landlord checked the water tank, which it found was “okay and not dirty”. It also replaced the basin taps. This was the second time that it had replaced the taps in a 9-month period. The landlord said that it would return on 4 May 2023 to check that that the work had resolved the issue. However, we have seen no evidence that it returned on this date.
On 3 July and 6 July 2023, the resident contacted the landlord. She said that the operative (who had attended previously) informed her that the water tank was old and would be replaced. She said the “black mould” was still coming out of the taps. The landlord’s repair records show that repair appointments were scheduled for 17 July 2023 and 16 August 2023. From the evidence provided, it not clear if the repairs went ahead, and if so, what work was undertaken. The absence of this information is concerning.
On 12 November 2023 and 5 December 2023, repairs were raised by the landlord to “check [the pipes] and floorboards”. It is unclear to this Service if these repairs were completed. However, the evidence suggests that they were not. This is because on 5 January 2024, the resident raised another repair with the landlord. She said that the mould had returned and the last operatives to attend had informed her that the issue was “coming from the pipes”. This job was cancelled (the reason is unknown) and raised again on 24 January 2024. The landlord attended the property on 31 January 2024. The repair records stated that it “changed some pipework around”. However, when the resident contacted the landlord on 5 March 2024, she said that it had not changed any pipework and had “only [undertaken] an inspection” to confirm where the pipes were running. As these are 2 conflicting versions of events, we are unable to make an assessment on the matter.
During the call on 5 March 2024, the resident told the landlord that during the appointment (on 31 January 2024) it had removed the bath panel and not replaced it. She asked it to confirm when it would be return to replace the panel and undertake the outstanding necessary work. However, there is no evidence that the landlord responded to her. This was inappropriate, as the landlord’s repairs policy states that it will keep residents updated regularly on repairs through to completion. It was also unreasonable that the resident had to inform the landlord on 3 further occasions between 17 April 2024 and 29 May 2024 that the bath panel needed to be replaced. From the evidence provided, it is reasonable to conclude that the repair was completed during the week commencing 3 June 2024. This was a total of 4 months after the resident had first made the landlord aware, which was unreasonable and at odds with its repairs policy.
In line with the landlord’s water safety management policy, we would expect it to take a report of water quality causing illness seriously. It is responsible for responding to the resident’s concerns, signposting, and working with contractors and partners to ensure that timely and effective investigations are sought. On 17 April 2024, the resident informed the landlord for the first time that she had been experiencing several medical conditions that she attributed to the quality of the water in the property. She said the conditions included bacterial skin infections, urinary tract infections, and bowel problems. She informed the landlord of her health concerns on 2 further occasions between 20 May 2024 and 31 May 2024. We therefore find it inappropriate that the landlord did not contact the water specialist contractor (to request a water sample to be taken) until 7 June 2024. Its lack of action and urgency in relation to this is concerning.
It is noted that within an internal email on 7 June 2024, the landlord said it had “concerns that [the case] would potentially escalate to a legal disrepair case”. Given the outcome of water sample tests and the landlord’s significant (£3,000) compensation offer in May 2025, it is reasonable to assume that the landlord had some concerns about the severity of its failings and the potential impact on the resident’s health. While not obligated to do so, we find that it would have been reasonable for the landlord to signpost the resident to the relevant advice services. This would have ensured that she had the appropriate support and guidance to allow her to pursue the legal matter further if she wished to do so. Its failure to do so at any point throughout its handling of this case is concerning.
Within an internal email on 3 June 2024, the landlord’s repair team informed its complaints team that “there was no work required [as it was] algae bloom”, and the resident would need to contact her water supplier for further assistance. The landlord included this explanation within its formal complaint response on 5 June 2024. In response, the resident informed the landlord that the local water supplier had sent it reports which confirmed there was no issues with the water supply into the property (and it was therefore the landlord’s responsibility). The landlord did not provide us with a copy of the water supplier’s report, which is a further record keeping failure. However, the landlord referenced the report within an internal email on 7 June 2024, which corroborates the resident’s claims.
The resident told the landlord on several occasions (between April 2024 and May 2025) that she had bought her own bottled water for consumption and washing, due to her health concerns mentioned earlier. It is noted that the landlord offered to deliver water to the resident on 7 June 2024. The landlord’s internal notes state that on 10 June 2024 the resident “refused” the offer and was “happy” to provide her own “as per the emails”. We have not seen evidence of these emails, which is a further record keeping failure. During a conversation with this Service in June 2025, the resident confirmed that she did refuse the landlord’s offer of having a pallet of water delivered. However, she said that she had informed the landlord that she did not have the space in her home to store a pallet, and she was not able to use or lift large bottles of water due to her medical conditions. She said that she felt that the landlord did not consider her vulnerabilities when it made this offer of water. While we do not dispute the resident’s comments or underestimate her concerns, we are unable to make an assessment on this aspect of the case due to the lack of documentary evidence available.
The water specialist contractor attended the resident’s property on 29 July 2024. It provided the landlord with a water sample certificate on 5 August 2024. The results confirmed that pseudomonas were present in the hot-water outlet in the kitchen and the cold-water outlet in the bathroom. The aerobic plate count (APC), which is used as an indicator of bacterial populations on a water sample, also presented an ‘amber warning’ in several outlets in the property. The landlord appropriately responded to the contractor the same day and requested it to provide a quote for the required remedial works. However, the landlord did not update the resident with the water specialist’s findings until 23 September 2024. It also did not chase the contractor for potential dates for the remedial works until 12 September 2024. This supported the resident’s concerns that the landlord was not taking her reports seriously, and was unreasonable.
The remedial work to clean, disinfect, flush and take further water samples were undertaken by the water specialist contractor on 23 September 2024. Given the nature of issues that had been identified, the resident’s concern about her health, and the fact she had been reporting the issues for almost 3 years, we find the 2-month delay in undertaking the remedial works inappropriate.
On 30 September 2024, the water specialist contractor provided the landlord with an update on the water sample results (taken on 23 September 2024). It said that it recommended that the resident use bottled water for drinking until further work had been undertaken to eradicate the pseudomonas that were still present. At this point, we find that it would have been appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident to reoffer her bottled water or discuss reimbursing her for the cost of water she had bought herself. This is because the landlord’s compensation policy states that it may consider paying compensation when there has been loss of amenities or services. Within the landlord’s email to the resident on 27 May 2025, it said that its stage 2 compensation offer of £800 was in recognition of the inconvenience to date, the overall timescale with progressing the works, the water quality issues being unresolved, and the communication failures of its internal teams. It further stated that its additional offer of £3,000 was in recognition of the overall timescale of the works, the challenges involved, and the inconvenience and time and trouble caused to the resident. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord did not consider the resident’s request for it to reimburse her for the water she has purchased during the period of which we have investigated. An order has therefore been made to address this issue.
It was positive that within an internal email on 16 July 2024, the landlord said that it would award the resident the “highest amount [of compensation] possible” (in line with its compensation matrix) for the impact and the time taken to resolve the issue between 2022 and 2024. However, taking all facts into account, we find its offer of £800 at stage 2 disproportionately low, and not reflective of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
The landlord’s subsequent apology and offer of compensation to the resident in May 2025 is both welcome and significant. However, as it was made 8 months after it had issued its stage 2 response and was apparently prompted by the Ombudsman’s involvement in the case, it cannot be fairly considered part of the landlord’s internal complaint procedure (ICP). This means we cannot use its offer to reach a reasonable redress finding in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the water quality at the property. We will, however, assess this within the complaint handling section of this report.
The resident was temporarily decanted from the property on 2 June 2025, so that the required repairs (full re-pipe of the property) could be undertaken. Both parties have provided this Service with conflicting reasons as to why there was a delay in the decant process and the subsequent outstanding works. However, as neither party has provided documentary evidence to support their claims, we are unable to make an assessment on this.
In summary, there are significant concerns about the consistency of the landlord’s approach in its handling and understanding of the severity of the resident’s concerns about the water quality. This is because:
1. It appropriately attended to many of the repairs within its target timescales but undertook the same repairs on numerous occasions. This caused the resident unnecessary distress and inconvenience. It was also at odds with its repairs policy, which states that its repairs service should deliver value for money.
2. It made conclusions about the safety of the water without any distinct evidence and delayed acting on recommendations, despite this being necessary to support its investigation into the resident’s concerns. It then offered her an alternative water supply, and latterly a temporary decant.
3. It did not consider arranging a water safety test until 133 weeks after the resident first raised a repair, and 7 weeks after she had made it aware of her health conditions.
4. Its record keeping was poor in relation to the repairs.
5. Its communication with the resident was lacking.
6. It did not provide a response in relation to the resident’s request for it to reimburse her for the bottles of water.
7. Its offer of £1,200 compensation (£400 in March 2023 and £800 in September 2024) was low and not proportionate redress for the detriment the resident experienced.
8. As of the date of this report, approximately 188 weeks have passed since the resident first reported her concerns, and the issue is not fully resolved.
In conclusion, we have identified a series of failures over a significant period of time that have had a serious detrimental impact on the resident. As such, we have made a finding of severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the water quality in the property.
To put things right for the resident, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident the revised amount of compensation it offered her in May 2025. Taking the personal circumstances of the resident into account, this is considered a reasonable amount, and at the higher end of the severe maladministration scale outlined in our remedies guidance. We have applied our remedies guidance and taken into account the high level of input from the resident, distress and inconvenience caused, and her reduced enjoyment of her home during this period.
As the repair issues remain outstanding (pending the results of the most recent water samples), we have made further orders to ensure the resident’s concerns about the water quality are fully addressed by the landlord.

Complaint handling

Following a cyber-security incident, the landlord introduced an interim complaints policy on 17 June 2022. It stated that it would acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and respond within 20 working days. The landlord’s website states that this policy was effective until 31 March 2024. The Ombudsman appreciates the effect a cyber incident can have on an organisation. It is reasonable that an organisation may need to pause its normal processes while it puts plans in place to deal with the effects of a cyber incident. In this context, the landlord’s interim timescales for complaint responses were reasonable at the time.
The evidence suggests that the resident made her first complaint to the landlord on 7 March 2023. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 23 March 2023. This was 17 working days later, and therefore in line with the timescales outlined in the landlord’s interim complaints policy.
The landlord’s updated complaints policy (effective from 1 April 2024) reflects the complaint handling timescales outlined in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’). Stage 1 complaints are to be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints are to be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. The landlord states in its policy that if it needs longer to investigate a complaint, it will not exceed a further 10 working days for stage 1 and 20 working days for stage 2.
The resident raised her second formal complaint on 5 April 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint via email on 17 April 2024. This was 13 working days later, and therefore at odds with the 5-working-day timescale outlined in its complaints policy. Within the landlord’s email, it said that it would aim to provide the resident with its stage 1 response within 10 working days (i.e. by 1 May 2024).
On 20 May 2024, the resident contacted the landlord for an update on her formal complaint and outstanding repairs. The landlord’s internal records stated that it would endeavour to return the resident’s call the following day. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord returned her call until 31 May 2024, which amounted to a delay of 12 working days. This was inappropriate as its complaint policy states that it will keep customers informed of any progress on their complaint. In mitigation, it is noted that the landlord apologised to the resident for its “lack of update”, which was positive.
The landlord’s stage 1 response was dated 6 June 2024. However, emails between the landlord and resident suggest that it issued the response on 5 June 2024. Although this error is likely to have had minimal impact on the resident, we expect the landlord to ensure that it checks its records and correspondence for accuracy before it issues formal responses.
Some aspects of the landlord’s stage 1 response were confusing. While it made some attempt to provide a timeline of events leading up to the complaint, we find that it should have provided the resident with some clarity on the time period it was investigating. As mentioned earlier, the landlord had already issued a stage 1 response in March 2023 in relation to the same issue (and offered £400 compensation for its handling of the matter). Therefore, within its stage 1 response (in June 2024), it would have been appropriate for it to assess its handling of the issue between March 2023 and June 2024. The landlord’s failure to effectively assess its handling of the resident’s concerns about the water quality during this period meant it missed an opportunity that may have led it to identify some of the additional failures highlighted by this investigation.
The landlord offered the resident £50 in compensation at stage 1 for its complaint handling delays. Based on this failure alone, this was a fair offer from the landlord and in line with its compensation policy.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 5 June 2024. The landlord acknowledged her escalation request on 18 June 2024. This was 10 working days later, and therefore at odds with the timescale (5 working days) outlined in the landlord’s complaint policy.
The landlord contacted the resident on 4 July 2024 and asked if she would allow it to extend the deadline for the stage 2 response until 31 July 2024. It said this was to “ensure a full and comprehensive response” was made. It is positive that the landlord communicated with the resident and that both parties agreed a new date. However, as 30 working days had already passed since the resident had requested to escalate her complaint, we find that the landlord should have informed her of the extension earlier. Additionally, a new response date of 31 July 2024 would have been a total of 57 working days. Therefore, this would have exceeded the maximum timescale of 45 working days (including 5 days for acknowledgement) allowed for stage 2 complaints.
The landlord contacted the resident on 13 August 2024 to apologise for failing to provide the stage 2 response on 31 July 2024. If a landlord is unable to meet a complaint deadline, we would expect it to contact the complainant at the earliest opportunity. Therefore, we find the landlord’s delayed update (of 10 working days) to the resident unreasonable, and the importance of effective communication during the complaints process is again highlighted. However, it is positive that the landlord apologised to the resident for this failure within its email (on 13 August 2024).
Within the landlord’s email to the resident on 13 August 2024, it attributed its complaint delays to ensuring that its “contractors could attend and recommend a scope of remedial works”. The Code states that a complaint response must be provided to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue are completed. Therefore, we find the landlord’s explanation for its complaint handling delays unreasonable.
While we find the landlord’s complaint handling delays unreasonable, the landlord appropriately kept the resident updated on the progress of her complaint on 5 occasions between 21 August 2024 and 23 September 2024.
The landlord then issued its stage 2 response on 30 September 2024. This was a total of 83 working days from the date the resident requested to escalate her complaint. This was an excessive delay. However, for this failure, we find the landlord’s additional offer of £100 compensation reasonable.
A stage 2 complaint is the final opportunity for the landlord to review its handling of the substantive issue, as well as the complaint handling process, and to put things right for the resident. However, we find the landlord’s stage 2 response inadequate as it did not make any attempt to assess its handling of the substantive issues, and only provided an update on the action it had taken since June 2024. This meant it missed a further opportunity that may have led it to identify some of the additional failures highlighted by this investigation.
An effective complaint resolution requires a process designed to put things right. Within the landlord’s stage 2 response, it stated that it would update the resident on the results of post-treatment water samples “towards the end of next week”. However, we have seen no documentary evidence that it did so. This is a record keeping failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
When the landlord provided its stage 2 response, the substantive issue had remained unresolved for almost 3 years after the resident had first reported it. It is accepted that it had not received the post-treatment water sample results at this point. However, in our opinion, within the stage 2 response the landlord could have agreed to provide the resident with a detailed plan of action immediately after it received the results and promised to monitor any actions through to completion.
The Code states that landlords must use complaints as a source of intelligence to identify issues and introduce positive changes to service delivery. It therefore would have been appropriate for the landlord to explain in its final complaint response what action it had taken to ensure that the failings it had identified would not happen again. In not doing so, the landlord has not evidenced that it learnt sufficiently from the complaint.
As mentioned earlier in the report, the landlord awarded the resident further compensation in May 2025 (in relation to the substantive issue). This amounts to a further complaint handling failure, as we expect landlords to aim to put things right for their residents during their formal complaint process. It is appropriate for landlords to review their actions in light of new information or to reflect the growing impact of a continued issue over time. However, when a landlord increases its offer following our intervention, with the apparent aim of avoiding investigation and/or a more serious finding of failure, this cannot be considered reasonable redress even if the increased award is proportionate.
Overall, we consider that the amount of compensation offered for the landlord’s complaint handling (£150) was low and did not account for all the failings identified within this report. It is for this reason that we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. An additional order of compensation has been made, which is proportionate to the failings identified. It has been calculated in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy as well as the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the water quality at the property.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman by the same date:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified within this report. This should be from a staff member of director level or above.
2. Provide the resident with a single point of contact who will provide regular updates on the outstanding repairs, at a frequency agreed with her.
3. Provide the resident with a copy of the most recent water sample test results. If the results confirm the water in the property is still unsafe to drink, it must provide her with a timebound plan detailing the action it proposes to take to fully resolve the issue.
4. Pay the resident £4,450 compensation. This must be paid directly to her and is made up as follows:
  1. £4,200 for its handling of her concerns about the water quality. This comprises the landlord’s offer of £400 at stage 1 (March 2023), £800 at stage 2, and £3,000 post stage 2.
  2. £250 for its handling of her complaint. This includes the landlord’s offer of £50 at stage 1 (June 2024) and £100 at stage 2, plus an additional £100 in recognition of the failures identified in this report.
  3. For the avoidance of any doubt, if any of the compensation has already been paid to the resident, it can be deducted from the total amount.
5. Provide the resident with a written response to her request to be reimbursed for the water she purchased. This is subject to her providing details of the cost, and any evidential requirements placed on the resident in this regard should not be unreasonable (taking account of the length of time that has passed). The landlord should consider its relevant policies and procedures when providing the response.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord contacts the resident to ask if she would like it to open a formal complaint or to contact its insurers about her allegations of it causing damage to her furniture in June 2025.
In June 2025, the resident informed us that she feels the property is no longer suitable for her needs. Therefore, we recommend that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss the options available to her regarding a move to alternative accommodation.
We recommend that the landlord familiarises itself with the Housing Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight Report on Knowledge Information Management (KIM), if it has not already done so. It should use the recommendations in the report to inform its future record keeping practices to aid service delivery.