Clarion Housing Association Limited (202405844)

Decision
Case ID	202405844
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Clarion Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	27 April 2026

Background

The resident lives in a ground-floor flat. She was unhappy with the landlord’s actions in response to sewage leaks that caused her to live elsewhere until it completed remedial works.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of sewage leaks.
2. Reports of damage caused to the flooring in the property.
3. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that there was
1. Reasonable redress regarding the landlord’s handling of reports of sewage leaks.
2. Reasonable redress regarding the landlord’s handling of reports of damage caused to the flooring in the property.
3. Service failure regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Sewage leaks

The landlord raised emergency and remedial repair works in response to the resident’s reports of sewage leaks. Although it failed to attend the second emergency repair within the 24-hour timeframe specified in its responsive repairs policy, this did not unduly affect the resident as she was living elsewhere temporarily at the time. The landlord offered compensation in recognition of the inconvenience that the resident suffered due to the leaks, which was reasonable.

Damaged flooring

The landlord appropriately advised the resident that she should contact her home contents insurer to make a claim for flooring damaged by sewage leaks. Although it did not consider advising her whether she could make a claim via its insurance, it offered appropriate compensation as a goodwill gesture towards the cost of replacement flooring.

Complaint handling

The resident was not unduly affected by the landlord’s failure to acknowledge her complaint at stage 1. However, its record of events in its stage 1 response contained errors, which prompted the resident to escalate the complaint.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 25 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £75 for the distress caused by its complaint handling failures. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 25 May 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

Apology order

The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:

The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic.
It has due regard to our apologies guidance.

No later than

25 May 2026

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £75 for the distress caused by its complaint handling failures.

This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.

The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.

No later than

25 May 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
As a finding of reasonable redress has been made based on the landlord’s offer of compensation, it should pay the £200 compensation offered to the resident for misdirection, inconvenience suffered and repeat visits to resolve a drainage problem, if it has not already done so.
As a finding of reasonable redress has been made based on the landlord’s goodwill offer, it should pay the £300 offered to the resident towards the cost of replacing damaged flooring, if it has not already done so.
It is recommended that the landlord advises the resident whether she can make a claim via its insurance for replacing wooden flooring damaged due to sewage leaks in her home in February 2024.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
26 March 2024	The resident raised a formal complaint. The key points were as follows: Issues with the main drains had caused 3 sewage leaks in her home, which flooded the entire property. Bathroom and kitchen flooring issues had been resolved, but asbestos floor tiles still needed to be removed. She did not feel that she should have to pay to replace wooden flooring damaged due to the landlord’s failure to deal with the main drains.
18 April 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. The key points were as follows: It apologised for its delayed response due to a high level of customer contacts. The resident had reported blocked drains and overflowing sewage on 17 February 2024. Its contractor cleared the drains but was unable to clear the blocked toilet. The landlord decided it was not suitable for the resident to live at the property until it had unblocked the toilet and cleaned the property. A contractor used CCTV to survey the drains to locate and clear the blockage on 21 February 2024, following which it restored the flow to the toilet. It had found no evidence that it was responsible for the blockage. Cleaning had not removed the bad smell from the flooring, so it removed all the flooring from the property. It then found asbestos tiles that required removal by a specialist contractor, which delayed the resident being able to return home. It had since removed the tiles and laid new flooring in the kitchen and bathroom. It did not accept claims for personal possessions within its complaints process. Standard practice would be for a resident to make a claim via their home contents insurance.
18 April 2024	The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The key points were as follows: There was never a blockage in her toilet. Tree roots had blocked the outside while she was away, which caused sewage from an upstairs flat to back up and overflow out of the resident’s toilet. When she returned home on 17 February 2024, there was sewage on every floor in the property. There were errors in the landlord’s version of events regarding works undertaken by its contractors. She reported 2 further sewage leaks in the bathroom and hall on 24 and 29 February 2024 due to the drain being blocked by tree roots. She could not understand how the landlord had no evidence that it had failed to maintain the drain that caused the blockage when she had watched its contractor use CCTV to take a photograph of tree roots in the drain. The landlord had not sufficiently cleaned the flat following the sewage leaks. She had paid 2 months’ rent on a flat that she had been unable to live in at great inconvenience to her and her family.
24 April 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request.
25 April 2024	The resident added to her escalation request. The key points were as follows: Under its repairs and maintenance, the landlord was responsible for maintaining the outside drains. Therefore, it was responsible for the sewage leaks in her flat and should compensate her for the wooden flooring that had to be removed. Human excrement had been sealed into the floor with latex due to the flat not being properly cleaned following the sewage leaks.
10 May 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. The key points were as follows: It had confirmed in its stage 1 response that it was responsible for the previously blocked drain and the tree that had blocked this. It had instructed its contractor to complete the repairs as soon as possible once it was aware of the issue. It acknowledged that the resident felt it should have maintained the drain prior to the sewage leak occurring. It said it would be difficult to identify such a defect without intervention from an external contractor and/or CCTV inspections. The resident’s version of events was correct regarding the contractors that attended with a CCTV survey conducted on 18 February 2024. It acknowledged inaccuracies in its stage 1 response regarding specific dates and the contractor used. Its contractor used specialist machinery to clear roots from the drain on 27 February 2024. A contractor also inspected the resident’s toilet on 1 March 2024 and left the drain free flowing. It had reviewed the cleaning that took place on 25 February 2024 and 3 March 2024 and considered that the standard was sufficient. It could not find any evidence of human excrement remaining and would have expected its flooring contractor to have expressed any concerns about this before installing the flooring. It apologised for any inconvenience caused by not removing and adequately cleaning the shower drain. It was unable to compensate the resident for items damaged due to the leaks within her home, as, under the terms of the tenancy, she was responsible for insuring her home contents. However, as a gesture of goodwill and without accepting liability, it offered the resident £300 towards replacing the flooring. It had completed repairs within its specified timeframes. It apologised for inaccuracies in its stage 1 response, the inconvenience suffered and the repeat visits made to resolve the issue. It had paid the resident £2,600 to compensate her for disruption caused for the time she stayed with friends and family. It had unsuccessfully tried to contact the resident to discuss her complaint on 7, 8 and 9 May 2024. It offered compensation totalling £500, comprised of £200 for misdirection, inconvenience suffered and repeat visits to resolve a drainage problem plus £300 as a gesture of goodwill towards the cost of replacing damaged flooring.
13 May 2024	The resident referred her complaint to us. She requested that the landlord cover the cost of replacing wooden flooring damaged by the sewage leaks due to failing to maintain the drains.

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	Landlord’s handling of reports of sewage leaks
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we have not investigated

The landlord offered the resident temporary accommodation due to the sewage leaks and awarded compensation due to the disruption caused by this. As this was separate to the resident’s formal complaint, we have not considered this as part of our assessment.

What we have investigated

On 17 February 2024, the resident reported a sewage leak in her home. The landlord arranged for a contractor to attend within its 24-hour timeframe for emergency repairs, as specified in its responsive repairs policy. It also raised further works to clean the property, which was appropriate.
Because the landlord noted that the property was uninhabitable due to the sewage leak, it authorised a move to temporary accommodation for the resident. This was in line with the tenancy’s terms and conditions, which state the landlord will move a resident to temporary accommodation until works are complete where it considers it cannot reasonably carry out works with the resident remaining in their home. In this case, however, the resident told the landlord that she would stay at a friend’s house.
The resident reported further sewage leaks on 24 and 29 February 2024, for which the landlord appropriately raised emergency repairs. However, it did not attend the first of these within 24 hours and instead raised a communal repair to unblock the drains, which it completed on 9 March 2024. This did not unduly affect the resident as she was not living in the property at the time.
The landlord raised further jobs to clean the property and undertake remedial works due to the sewage leaks. These included fitting new flooring in the bathroom and kitchen, as well as removing wooden flooring that had retained a bad smell after cleaning. After removing the wooden flooring, the landlord raised a job for a specialist contractor to remove asbestos tiles that it found underneath before arranging a further job to apply latex flooring where the wooden flooring had been. The landlord’s records show it attended each job within the 28-day timeframe for routine repairs specified in its responsive repairs policy.
The landlord provided an internal email that noted it had phoned the resident on 17 April 2024. However, it has not provided any evidence of the call, which indicates an issue with its record keeping. There is also no evidence that it made a manager call back, as requested by the resident, which indicates a further record keeping issue.
On 20 April 2024, the resident said human excrement had been sealed into the latex flooring due to it not being properly cleaned beforehand. When responding at stage 2 of its complaints process, the landlord said it had reviewed images provided by the resident but found no evidence of excrement embedded into the latex flooring. It also said its contractor had not expressed any concerns before installing the flooring. We are satisfied that the landlord acted reasonably to consider the evidence it had before responding to reassure the resident.
On 22 April 2024, the landlord noted that the resident could return home. This was 65 days after the resident had to move out of the property. However, the landlord has provided no evidence of how it communicated this to the resident, which further indicates an issue with its record keeping.
In its stage 2 complaint response on 10 May 2024, the landlord offered the resident £200 compensation for misdirection, any inconvenience suffered and repeat visits to resolve the drain issues. This falls in line with our remedies guidance, in recognition of failings that have adversely affected a resident but without any permanent impact. Therefore, we have made a finding of reasonable redress.

Complaint	Landlord’s handling of reports of damage caused to the flooring in the property
Finding	Reasonable redress

The resident asked the landlord to cover the cost of replacing wooden flooring, which was damaged by sewage leaks that resulted from a blocked drain that the landlord was responsible for. The landlord replaced the bathroom and kitchen flooring but said the resident should make a claim on her home contents insurance for wooden flooring damaged by the leaks. This was in line with the terms and conditions of the tenancy, which state the resident is responsible to pay for contents insurance. However, while unable to comment on the merits of a claim, it is a shortcoming that the landlord did not consider advising the resident whether she could make a claim via its insurance.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it may not offer compensation for claims that should be covered by a home contents insurance policy. This includes damaged floor coverings due to leaks. However, we welcome that it offered the resident £300 as a gesture of goodwill towards the cost of new flooring. As this falls in line with our compensation guidance, in recognition of failings that have adversely affected a resident but without any permanent impact, we have made a finding of reasonable redress.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), effective from 1 April 2022, set out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord had a published complaints policy that did not comply with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales. However, it now has a published complaints policy that complies with the statutory Code that came into effect on 1 April 2024 in respect of timescales.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 26 March 2024. In accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord should have acknowledged the complaint within 10 working days and issued a stage 1 response within a further 20 working days. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint, which was not in line with its complaints policy. However, it issued a stage 1 response on 18 April 2024, which was 16 working days after the resident complained. Therefore, its failure to acknowledge the complaint did not unduly affect the resident.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 18 April 2024. In accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord should have acknowledged the escalation request within 10 working days and issued a stage 2 response within a further 40 working days. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 24 April 2024 and issued a stage 2 response on 10 May 2024. Therefore, it complied with the timeframes specified in its complaints policy.
The resident said the landlord’s stage 1 response contained errors. When responding at stage 2, the landlord said the version of events in its stage 1 response was only partially correct. This demonstrated a lack of due care and attention. Had the landlord addressed events correctly at stage 1, it might have identified service failings and considered awarding compensation.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it had tried contacting the resident by phone on 3 occasions to discuss her complaint. The resident told us that she did not answer the calls because she did not know who was calling. However, the landlord has not provided any evidence of when it made it the calls, which indicates an issue with its record keeping.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint has led to a finding of service failure.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s records did not include some of its contacts with the resident. It should consider completing a self-assessment against our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management, if it has not already done so.

Communication

The landlord’s communication in this case was poor. It needs to ensure it has processes and procedures in place that enable effective and regular communication with its residents. In this case, the landlord failed to keep in regular contact with the resident to update her regarding repairs and did not respond to a call back request. Good communication plays a key role in an effective repairs system, and the landlord must consider how it can improve its communication with residents.