Clarion Housing Association Limited (202526950)

Decision
Case ID	202526950
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Clarion Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	30 March 2026

Background

1. The property is a house with 2 bathrooms, one in an attached outbuilding and another internal bathroom, which does not have a toilet. The resident lives with her 4 children, aged between 14 and 22 years old. She has complained about a leaking toilet in the outbuilding. The landlord is aware of vulnerabilities within the household.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of a leaking toilet.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leaking toilet.
   2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Leaking toilet

4. The landlord delayed carrying out the necessary checks to determine repair responsibility, despite the resident challenging its initial decision. It did not rearrange a missed appointment, which allowed the problem to worsen. There were also further delays in progressing and completing the required works, resulting in them taking 14 months to complete overall. In addition, the landlord did not give adequate consideration to the household’s vulnerabilities.

Complaint handling

5. There were minor delays in the landlord acknowledging the resident’s complaints at both stages. At stage 1, it requested an extension but did not provide its response within the timescale it had given, nor did it keep the resident updated about the further delay. In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged these delays and took reasonable steps to put things right.

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	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £700 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the errors in its handling of her reports of a leaking toilet. 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 made.	No later than 27 April 2026
2	Communication order The landlord must write to both us and the resident by the due date, setting out: An update on its current position regarding reinstating a toilet in the internal bathroom. An explanation of how this position was reached, considering the stance set out in its final response and referencing any relevant policies, legal requirements, good practice, and consideration of the resident’s circumstances.	No later than 27 April 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident the £100 previously offered for its complaint handling, if it has not already done so. Our reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this being paid.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
December 2024	The resident reported a leak from her toilet. After visiting the property, the landlord told her that the repair was her responsibility because it had not fitted the toilet.
8 May 2025	The resident complained to the landlord. She said that after reporting a leaking toilet, which had also caused the bathroom floor to rot, she had not received any updates from the landlord since January 2025. She stated that she had explained that the toilet was already in the property when she moved in.
26 June 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It acknowledged that obtaining a “solid answer” about responsibility for the toilet had been frustrating for the resident. It said to resolve the issue, an Area Manager would visit her on 27 June 2025. The landlord also offered £50 in compensation for the delayed complaint response.
11 August 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She said that no one had attended her property on the date arranged in the stage 1 response.
19 September 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said it was satisfied that the stage 1 response was fair, accurate, and in line with its policies and procedures at the time it was issued. It explained that it had attempted to visit on 27 June 2025 but had been unable to gain access, though it acknowledged that it should have arranged a further visit. After attending on 5 September 2025, it said it found the outbuilding toilet unfit for purpose and confirmed that extensive work was needed to reinstate an internal toilet. It accepted responsibility for the repairs and increased its overall compensation offer to £300 in recognition of the service failings and complaint handling failures identified.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate, as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. She said the landlord’s compensation offer was inadequate given the length of time she had been without a safe internal toilet, the ongoing impact on her mental health and her children’s wellbeing, and the landlord’s repeated failures to meet its obligations.
26 January 2026	The landlord contacted the resident and explained that it had reviewed her complaint. It apologised for the length of time the repair issues had continued and for the impact this had on her and her family. It said it should have managed the situation more proactively and ensured the property was repaired within reasonable timeframes. It offered a further £500 in compensation in recognition of the additional service failures it had identified.
6 March 2026	During her contact with us, the resident explained that a surveyor had attended to review and take measurements of the internal bathroom, but she had not received any further updates from the landlord. As an outcome, she said she would like a new internal bathroom including a toilet.

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	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leaking toilet
Finding	Maladministration

6. The resident first reported a leaking toilet on 18 December 2024, explaining that it was the sole toilet in the property. The landlord attended the same day, within its 24-hour emergency repair timescale, and confirmed there was a leak. However, it did not carry out any repairs, stating that it had not installed the toilet and that the repair was therefore the resident’s responsibility.
7. The resident queried this decision with the landlord, explaining that the bathroom was the same as when she had moved into the property and asked it to repair the toilet urgently. The landlord maintained its position, but there is no evidence that it investigated the matter further before deciding not to complete the repair. Given that this was the sole toilet in the property, and the resident told the landlord the toilet had been in place when she moved in, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to carry out further checks —such as by reviewing its empty homes records. Its failure to do so was unreasonable and left the resident with unresolved issues, contributing to her distress and inconvenience.
8. On 28 January 2025, the resident reported that the toilet leak was ongoing and that it was leaving the bathroom floor constantly wet. She told the landlord that both she and her daughter had disabilities, and that the wet floor posed a safety risk and was causing her autistic daughter significant distress. The landlord arranged to visit on 5 February 2025, which was appropriate given the circumstances the resident described.
9. According to the landlord’s timeline, it attended on 5 February 2025 and again advised the resident that she was responsible for the repair.However, given the safety concerns, the household’s vulnerabilities, and the ongoing nature of the leak, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to take a more proactive approach. Its failure to reconsider its position or explore further options at this stage was inappropriate, ultimately leaving the resident to arrange and fund her own repair. This likely contributed to her decision to escalate the matter through the complaints process.
10. In her initial complaint on 8 May 2025, the resident said the leaking toilet had caused the bathroom floor to rot and again disputed the landlord’s position. In its stage 1 response on 26 June 2025, the landlord said it would visit on 27 June 2025. A timeline provided by the landlord states that it attended as planned but was unable to gain access.
11. Following its attempted visit, the landlord should have contacted the resident to arrange a further appointment, which it has since appropriately acknowledged. However, it took no further action, which led the resident to escalate her complaint on 11 August 2025. On the same day, she reported that the toilet had fallen through the floor and that the floorboards were likely to collapse. The landlord attended within its 24‑hour emergency repair timescale and noted that the toilet had already been fixed but that the flooring underneath required repair. Its failure to follow up after the missed appointment in June 2025 was unreasonable, particularly given the concerns the resident had already raised about the flooring and the vulnerabilities it was aware of. This inaction allowed the problem to worsen and caused additional delays, resulting in avoidable distress and inconvenience to the resident.
12. In its stage 2 response on 19 September 2025, the landlord acknowledged its failure to repair the toilet in December 2024, stating this was “incorrect and should have been addressed at the time”. It said it had attended on 5 September 2025 and found the outbuilding toilet unfit for purpose. It explained that extensive work was needed to reinstate a toilet in the internal bathroom, for which it was obtaining quotes. The landlord also said it held no records showing whether the outbuilding toilet should have been removed when the property was empty or was installed later. In the absence of evidence, it accepted responsibility for completing the works and committed to completing interim repairs to make the existing toilet safer to use, which was a fair approach. However, it was unreasonable that the landlord took 9 months from the resident’s initial report to reach this decision.
13. The landlord completed the repairs to replace the sub‑floor and fix the leaking toilet on 26 November 2025 – 68 days after issuing its stage 2 response, exceeding its 28‑day target for non‑emergency repairs. During a case review on 20 January 2026, it identified that the vinyl flooring had not been replaced following the sub‑floor works. While it was positive that this omission was picked up during the review, it resulted in a further delay, with the flooring not completed until 18 February 2026. Overall, it took the landlord 14 months from the resident’s initial report to fully restore the toilet and bathroom to a usable standard. While there were some mitigating factors, failings in the landlord’s handling of the repairs unreasonably prolonged the process and contributed to the significant delay.
14. The resident told us that the situation had affected her mental health and her children’s wellbeing, particularly her autistic daughter, who was highly sensitive to hygiene and routine. The landlord was aware of these concerns and of the household’s vulnerabilities. If the resident believes the situation caused an injury, it would be fairer and more effective for her to pursue a personal injury claim, as the courts can rely on independent medical evidence to determine the cause and duration of any injury. We have therefore not investigated this aspect further.
15. We can, however, consider whether the landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience. These circumstances should have prompted the landlord to act with greater urgency. It should have identified the household as vulnerable and prioritised the case accordingly. Its failure to do so was inappropriate and caused avoidable distress and inconvenience.
16. During her contact with us in March 2026, the resident confirmed that the toilet was no longer leaking, indicating that the completed repairs had resolved the leak. However, she remained concerned that it was still unfit for purpose. She explained that, following the stage 2 response, she had received no further updates about reinstating a toilet in the internal bathroom. When we requested an update from the landlord, it advised that it did not plan to complete any further works. It said it was satisfied that the resident could access the outbuilding bathroom from inside the property and that a working toilet was available.
17. There is no legislation that specifically requires a property to have an internal toilet, but the law does require that a dwelling has access to a working and reasonably accessible toilet. We have seen no evidence to suggest this requirement is not being met. The landlord is entitled to exercise its discretion and revise its position, but it should have explained any change in its approach to the resident. The reasons for the change following the stage 2 response are not clear, and we have not seen evidence that this was communicated to her. This lack of explanation has likely caused the resident uncertainty. We have therefore made an order relating to the landlord’s communication on this matter.
18. In its final response, the landlord increased its overall offer of compensation to £200. On 26 January 2026, following our request for information, the landlord wrote to the resident confirming it had reviewed the case. It acknowledged failings, apologised, and outlined evidence of learning. For this reason, we have not considered it necessary to make an apology order. The landlord also offered an additional £500 compensation (increasing its total offer to £700), which showed a meaningful attempt to recognise the detriment caused. However, as this further offer was made 4 months after the final complaint response and was prompted by our involvement, it cannot fairly be treated as part of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure (ICP) or considered proportionate redress for the failings identified. Nonetheless, the fact that it attempted to put things right has prevented a more serious finding of severe maladministration.
19. The landlord’s final compensation offer was appropriate and aligned with our remedies guidance, which recommends awards of this level where failures have had a significant impact on the resident and substantial redress is required. For this reason, we have not found it necessary to order any additional payments beyond those already offered. However, we have ordered the landlord to pay the £700 offered in January 2026 if it has not already done so.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	Reasonable redress

20. Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. In this case, the relevant Code was published in April 2024. The timescales outlined in the landlord’s complaints policy were consistent with the requirements of the Code.
21. At stage 1, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within one working day. It notified the resident of an extension on 23 May 2025, which was within the 10‑working‑day response period, and said it expected to respond by 6 June 2025 – an extension of 9 working days. However, the landlord issued its response on 26 June 2025, 14 working days later than it had indicated, exceeding both its policy timescales and the Code. It did not provide any update to explain this further delay. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to inform the resident at the earliest opportunity that the response would be delayed and to give a revised date. Its failure to do so was unreasonable.
22. At stage 2, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation after 8 working days, representing a delay of 3 working days. It notified the resident of an extension on 18 September 2025, which was within the 20‑working‑day response period, and said it expected to respond by 13 October 2025 – an extension of 17 working days. However, it issued its response on 19 September 2025, significantly ahead of the timescale it had communicated.
23. In its complaint responses, the landlord apologised and offered compensation for its delays. In its final response, it increased its overall offer of compensation to £100 for complaint handling. This offer was appropriate and in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure by the landlord in the service it provided.

Learning

24. The landlord should ensure that when a resident disputes repair responsibility, it carries out appropriate checks before reaching a decision. This may include reviewing empty homes records or other internal documentation. The landlord should use this as a learning opportunity to strengthen its procedures and help prevent similar failings in future cases.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

25. There were gaps in the landlord’s records, with certain events referenced in its complaint responses and internal correspondence not reflected in its documented records. For example, the landlord said it had visited the property on 5 February 2025, 27 June 2025 and 5 September 2025. However, there were no contemporaneous records for any of these visits, which limits the landlord’s ability to demonstrate what action it took and when. This suggests there may be some areas where the landlord could strengthen its record‑keeping processes.

Communication

26. The landlord did not update the resident after its stage 2 response to explain its revised position on reinstating an internal toilet. The landlord should provide updates and explain any changes at the earliest opportunity, especially where expectations have previously been set.