Clarion Housing Association Limited (202313687)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313687

Clarion Housing Association Limited

9 May 2025

Amended on Review 11 February 2026

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:
1. Reports of disrepair to the kitchen following a leak.
2. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord with the tenancy beginning in November 2012. The property is a 3-bedroom ground-floor flat. There are no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
In November 2020, the resident reported a leak from the kitchen sink, and sewage and water coming up through the sink. The landlord attended and carried out the necessary repairs. It also recommended “a descale of the stack to stop further back surges”.
Between September and November 2022, the resident reported further drainage issues and a leak to the kitchen sink. A local councillor contacted the landlord on behalf of the resident on 11 November 2022. They said that:
1. The resident had first reported the issue on 2 October 2022 and chased the matter on 28 October 2022.
2. An operative had attended the property and initially said they could not remove the kitchen units obstructing access by the stack pipe. Once they removed the units, they encountered an open-ended waste pipe connected to the stack pipe.
3. The resident advised the operative who attended did not have sufficient equipment to clear the blockage and requested that the jetter team be sent. The repair log showed that the jetter request was raised as an emergency repair and completed on 15 November 2022.
The landlord raised a repair order on 17 November 2022, with the case notes saying there was “extensive damage” to the kitchen and hall floor. They also said to replace “base unit and assess integrity” with follow-on works being required to the floor. This was completed as a routine repair on 21 November 2022.
In February 2023, the resident contacted the councillor. The internal notes from this visit said that he was distressed about the property and was in a “terrible state”. The councillor contacted the landlord twice in February 2023 to request a “full explanation of what the landlord understands the issues to be” and the landlord’s insurance details. They also said that, following an enquiry dating back to October 2022, the resident had been “left with kitchen units removed, foul water filling their washing machine and a nonfunctioning cooker”. They said that they had previously asked for written confirmation of agreed works, but this had not been “forthcoming”. The resident also contacted the landlord directly requesting it contact him as a matter of urgency.
On 1 March 2023, the councillor contacted the landlord confirming details of a site visit held that day. This included the landlord’s agreement to provide a “full written statement of works”. Throughout March 2023 the resident liaised with the landlord. He said he was not happy with the progression of works, outlining that some works were still outstanding despite the landlord saying “all essential works” were complete. He indicated that he wanted all the kitchen units replaced.
On 9 March 2023 the landlord contacted the resident acknowledging his complaint. It also contacted the councillor outlining the action it had taken. It noted that there was no need for a dehumidifier as there was no major drying out required. It said as a gesture of goodwill it had replaced the oven and hob in the kitchen and would continue to liaise with the resident about the final kitchen repairs. On 13 March 2023 the resident requested a surveyor visit the property as he was still not happy with the repairs to the kitchen and surrounding area.
In March and April 2023, the landlord carried out some repairs. It then sent its stage 1 complaint response on 5 May 2023. It said that:
1. The operative’s report did not specify that works would be undertaken to replace all the kitchen units.
2. It was unable to identify from its repair log whether there were any historical repairs of sewage entering the property prior to November 2022. It attributed this to the possibility limited data was available as a result of a cyber-attack in 2022.
3. It outlined the action and repairs it had undertaken, also noting that the resident had refused access to the property in April 2023.
4. It offered the resident £250, made up of £200 for any distress and inconvenience and £50 for the delay in responding to his complaint.
The resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 15 May 2023, saying that he did not accept the landlord’s offer of compensation and believed the details of the stage 1 response were incorrect. He went on to say that the works were not completed and the operative who attended the last appointment had “no idea what was being done”. The landlord acknowledged the escalated complaint on 19 May 2023.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 4 July 2023. It said that:
1. It apologised for the delay in providing a response.
2. It felt the stage 1 response was “fair and reasonable” and it had applied compensation in line with its policy.
3. It apologised if the resident felt he was led to believe the kitchen would be replaced entirely. It explained that outside of planned investment works, this would only be agreed if the kitchen was in a condition so damaged as to not be repairable.
4. It apologised that the stage 1 response said the snagging list had been completed and offered the resident an additional £50 compensation to reflect the oversight. This brought its total offer to £300.

Assessment and findings

Resident’s reports of disrepair to the kitchen following a leak

The landlord’s repair policy divides responsive repairs into 2 main categories – emergency and non-emergency. It says that:
1. An emergency repair is classified as one that presents an immediate danger to the resident, the public or the property, or would jeopardise the health, safety, or security of the resident.
2. Any emergency repair should be attended within 24 hours and works to make safe or temporarily repair should be completed at this visit. Further repairs may then subsequently be required.
3. Non-emergency repairs should be completed as soon as possible and within a maximum of 28 days.
4. As far as is practicable, responsive repairs are limited to minor building repairs, with a driver to keep properties in a safe state, fit for habitation, and with all components safe and serviceable for day-to-day use by residents.
5. Major component replacement (kitchens, bathrooms, roofs, etc) are not considered responsive repairs and these items will be referred to the relevant teams to deliver through planned programmes.
The landlord’s repair log shows that the resident first reported a leaking sink and sewage coming up through the kitchen sink on 28 November 2020. The operative who attended recommended a “descale of the stack to stop further back surges”. Despite this recommendation, the repair log does not appear to show that this action was taken.
On 24 September 2022, the repair log shows that the resident reported a leak underneath the kitchen cabinet, the source of which was inaccessible. This issue was raised as an emergency repair; however, the landlord did not attend until 26 September 2022, which was inconsistent with the landlord’s 24-hour emergency repair policy. Furthermore, the repair log lacked specific details regarding the repair or action taken. This was not appropriate and indicated a record keeping failure. Accurate and complete records enable outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and the landlord to provide accurate information to its residents.
On 28 October 2022, the resident reported another leak behind the kitchen units, which required their removal for access. The repair log shows this was handled as a routine repair and completed 14 days later on 11 November 2022. This falls within the landlord’s 28-day routine repair timescale and was therefore appropriate according to its policy.
On 11 November 2022, the councillor contacted the landlord, reporting that the attending operative initially stated they could not remove the unit to access the leak. The councillor further stated the base unit was eventually removed, revealing an open-ended waste pipe connected to the soil stack. The pipe was capped, which in turn prevented water draining from the sink. The operative was understood to have escalated the matter to a supervisor who arranged an out-of-hours operative for that evening. However, the councillor said this operative lacked the necessary equipment to clear the blockage. None of this information was detailed in the case notes or repair log. In the absence of any available evidence to the contrary, and any objection or alternative version of events supplied by the landlord, the Ombudsman has relied on the councillor’s version of events.
While the unit was eventually removed, it was not appropriate that the operative was seemingly unprepared for this. This is notable because the case notes for 28 October 2022 clearly mentioned the need to remove the unit to access the source of the leak.
According to the repair log, an emergency works order for a jetter team was raised on 11 November 2022 and completed on 15 November 2022, 4 days later. This delay is concerning because the repair was flagged as an emergency, which should have been addressed within 24 hours according to the landlord’s repair policy. Therefore, the landlord failed to adhere to its own policy for emergency repairs, which was not appropriate. Additionally, the landlord has not provided evidence that it followed the operative’s 2020 recommendation to descale the stack to prevent future back surges. This preventative measure could have potentially eliminated the need for the jetter team and allowed for earlier detection of the open-ended stack.
The repair log for 17 November 2022 confirms the open-ended pipe was repaired. The log also noted “extensive damage to the kitchen and hallway floor”, and included instructions to “please replace 600 base unit and assess integrity” along with the need for follow-on work on the floor. The repair was recorded as complete on 21 November 2022. This was completed as a routine repair and within the landlord’s 28-day policy timescale, which was appropriate.
On 13 February 2023, the resident spoke with the councillor’s representative, who reported in an internal email that the resident was in a “terrible state” because the landlord had informed him, he was responsible for the cost of damaged items and the property damage. Furthermore, the resident’s insurance would not cover the claim as it was over 90 days old. The councillor contacted the landlord the same day, requesting a full explanation and details of the actions it would take. The evidence seen does not show this was responded to, which was not appropriate.
On 28 February 2023, the councillor requested a schedule of works from the landlord, saying that contractors were preparing to refit the existing units. A follow-up email was sent on 1 March 2023, reiterating the need for a written statement detailing the planned work, as previously agreed on-site. However, there is no record of the site visit in the repair log or case notes, highlighting another record keeping failure. It is important to properly document such interactions to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 1 March 2023 and sent an additional email on 3 March 2023. He said that on 11 November 2022, raw sewage and other debris flooded his kitchen through an uncapped soil pipe. Work to repair it was scheduled to begin 27 February 2023, but he was advised the operatives were only restoring the existing kitchen, not replacing it. He went on to say this violated health and safety regulations and there were several additional issues he wanted to discuss.
On 6 March 2023, the resident and landlord liaised over the works being carried out. The landlord said that the essential works were completed, and the kitchen was “fully usable”. The resident disagreed, saying there was “quite a bit of work still to be done” and he was unhappy at having to take more time off work. The landlord’s failure to provide a schedule of repairs or a statement of action, as requested by the councillor, unfairly created uncertainty for the resident and did not effectively manage his expectations.
The landlord contacted the councillor to say that there was no need for a dehumidifier at the property as “no major drying out was required”. Although it is noted the contractor’s notes of 17 November 2022, said that there was “extensive damage” to the kitchen. The landlord is expected to keep robust records of its repair works. When there is a disagreement in the accounts of the resident and the landlord with regard to the condition of the property, the onus would be on the landlord to provide documentary evidence showing how it satisfied itself that the repair work had been completed to a satisfactory standard. This was not comprehensive in this case. The landlord did, however, confirm that as a gesture of goodwill it was replacing the oven and hob in the kitchen. This was a positive step and solution focused.
On 13 March 2023, the resident requested a surveyor’s visit as he was unhappy with the outcome of the repair to the kitchen and surrounding area. The landlord responded on 26 March 2023, saying its records showed the works were completed on 13 March 2023 and if anything was still outstanding to let it know. The resident replied on 5 April 2023 saying the repairs had not been done properly. The repair log shows that on 20 April 2023 a works order was raised to make good any snags identified, with a “provisional booking”. The case notes also say that the resident refused access on 27 April 2023.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 5 May 2023. It outlined the action it had taken in relation to the repairs. It said that it had checked its records and was unable to identify any works raised to replace all of the kitchen units. From the evidence seen by this Service, there were no records indicating that the kitchen was to be replaced. To clarify this further, the repair log dated 17 November 2022 said replace “600 base unit” which was singular. Additionally, the repair log for 25 January 2023 said, “remove some base units….and reinstate units”. This did not specify to replace with new units. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to refuse to replace the kitchen. Furthermore, its repair policy says major component replacement such as kitchensare not responsive repairs and are instead delivered through planned programmes.
While the stage 1 response initially claimed the landlord was “unable to confirm a failure in service to complete your repairs within its Service Level Agreement”, this appears to be a typo, as the landlord subsequently offered £200 “in recognition of this”, indicating a partial upholding of the resident’s complaint for the “inconvenience caused”. The landlord’s apologetic response was reasonable and provided both financial compensation and gifted items. Whilst this demonstrated that the landlord recognised the distress and inconvenience the situation caused and took positive steps to put things right, the steps did not go far enough.
Unsatisfied, the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 15 May 2023, rejecting the compensation offer and disputing that the work was complete. The landlord’s stage 2 response of 4 July 2023 apologised for the delay and maintained that its stage 1 response was fair and accurate regarding the issues raised. It stated that compensation was applied according to its policy where service failures were identified. The landlord further explained that a replacement kitchen, outside of any planned investment works, would only be approved if the existing one was beyond repair, and the landlord deemed the current condition did not warrant replacement. Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to explain its decision, it should have considered whether an independent survey was required, to get a final position on the repairs.
It went on to apologise that its stage 1 response had said the snagging was completed on 13 March 2023. This Service notes that the works were recorded as completed on 29 June 2023. The landlord offered the resident an additional £50 compensation to reflect the “oversight”. Again, whilst this was reasonable in the circumstances, given the resident’s position that the works remained inadequate, a further inspection should have been completed.
As such, we are satisfied that an independent surveyor should review the repairs to the kitchen including the cupboards and the flooring. If a surveyor determines that further work is needed or replacement, the landlord should action this. The surveyor should also check for potential contamination as raised by the resident. It is a valid point that health and safety regulations be maintained.
In summary, the landlord failed to fully adhere to its repair policy timescales and required subsequent visits to complete the repairs. It did not promptly identify the cause of the leak, and its operatives were seemingly unprepared. For example, on 28 October 2022 the case notes clearly mentioned the need to remove the unit to access the source of the leak. Additionally, the operative was not equipped to clear the blockage on 11 November 2022, and despite an emergency repair being raised it was attended to 4 days later. The need for repeat visits prolonged a resolution for the resident which evidently caused him distress and inconvenience.
On more than 1 occasion, the councillor had requested a schedule of works or a written statement of the action the landlord was going to take. There was no evidence this was provided. This, in turn, caused uncertainty for the resident and confusion over what works were to be carried out.
We believe further compensation is warranted, therefore the landlord will be ordered to pay £600. It is of utmost importance that hygiene and cleanliness be maintained in a kitchen. The residents had to deal with foul water and sewage in their kitchen. This would have been very distressing and highly inconvenient. The residents had to wait several months before the kitchen was restored. The delay was excessive and should have been dealt with sooner. The landlord did offer some compensation along with a new oven and hob. But this did not go far enough for the distress and inconvenience caused. As such, taking the landlord’s actions into consideration, we have made a finding of service failure for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of disrepair to the kitchen following a leak.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint handling policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
In this case, the landlord was initially liaising with the resident’s local councillor. The resident made his stage 1 complaint on 1 March 2023 and provided additional information on 3 March 2023. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 5 May 2023. This was 43 working days later and significantly outside of its policy timescale of 10 working days. The landlord did, however, apologise for the delay and also offered the resident £50 compensation. This timescale was unreasonable, and the compensation did not reflect the significant delay.
On 15 May 2023, the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 4 July 2023, which was 15 working days outside of its policy timescale. While its response acknowledged the delay and apologised, it did not offer the resident compensation. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to offer further financial redress to put things right. However, it did not do this, which was unreasonable.
In summary, the landlord failed to sufficiently follow its complaints procedure, with both responses being provided significantly outside of its policy timescale. In total the landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for its delays. The resident expended time and trouble in pursuing the complaint and was delayed in bringing his complaint to this Service. Therefore, we find there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and £100 compensation has been awarded to him. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and compensation range for instances of “service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant”.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in its handling of the resident’s reports of disrepair to the kitchen following a leak
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to take the following action and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report, in line with this Service’s apologies guidance.
2. Pay directly to the resident compensation of £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused to him by the kitchen leak. (This includes the £250 previously offered).
3. Pay directly to the resident compensation of £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to him by its complaint handling delay.
4. Arrange for relevant frontline staff involved in complaint handing to complete this Service’s free online dispute resolution training for landlords, if this has not been done recently.
5. Arrange an independent surveyor to assess the repairs to the kitchen. The surveyor should consider potential contamination and health and safety issues. The landlord to action the surveyors recommendations. The landlord to provide the surveyors report to this Service as well as evidence of works carried out.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord familiarises itself with this Service’s spotlight reports on complaints about repairs and knowledge and information management (KIM). It should consider self-assessing against these reports, if it has not done so recently, and any training needs of its staff in these areas.