Clarion Housing Association Limited (202313988)

Decision
Case ID	202313988
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Clarion Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	29 October 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom house with her partner and 2 children. She complained about a bathroom leak and the time it was taking the landlord to complete the necessary repairs. The resident was due to have new carpets installed and was concerned about going ahead with this while the leak was ongoing.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a bathroom leak and the associated repairs.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a bathroom leak and the associated repairs.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The handling of the bathroom leak and the associated repairs

5. The landlord delayed in resolving the leak. This includes locating the source of the leak and carrying out works to replace the shower. It also delayed completing the associated repairs to “make good” the area that was damaged during the investigation of the leak.
6. The landlord appropriately acknowledged its failings during the complaints process and awarded the resident compensation. This was subsequently increased to a more proportionate sum, but this was after the complaint was referred to us for investigation.

The handling of the complaint

7. The landlord handled the complaint in accordance with the timescales in its interim complaints policy. However, it failed to appropriately identify all failures including further delays and the initial report of a leak during the complaints process. Furthermore, it failed to adequately put things right at an earlier stage.

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 26 November 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £500 made up as follows: £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to follow its policy when the leak was reported in November 2024. £50 for the time and trouble incurred by the resident having to raise the issue with us. £200 for the distress and inconvenience for not completing the aesthetic repairs in a timely manner. £50 for the distress and inconvenience 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 26 November 2025
3	Works order We have made a works order as it is unclear whether the follow on repairs have been satisfactorily completed. What the landlord must do The landlord must contact the resident to confirm: what work is outstanding. when it plans to complete any outstanding work. whether it intends to offer further compensation. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed 26 November 2025 by the due date.	No later than 26 November 2025

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
It is recommended the landlord considers the failings identified in this report and complete a review into its handling of the leak and the associated repairs. This should include how it can prevent similar failings happening again. The review should consider: Following up on reports of repairs in a timely manner. How it can prevent further record keeping failures. The recommendations made in our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.
The landlord should consider contacting the resident to discuss her concerns about potential damaged items. If appropriate it should consider whether it can reimburse her for these items or provide her with details of its insurer so that she can make a claim.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
10 November 2022	The resident reported that the kitchen ceiling was “moving” with water marks on the walls. She reported that the water had also gotten into the lights causing them to dim.
1 March 2023	The resident reported a leak in the kitchen ceiling which also affected a light fitting.
11 July 2023	The resident complained to the landlord. She said: it had agreed in May 2023 to fix the leak, but it had not done so. she was due to have new carpets fitted on 28 July 2023 and could not delay this any further. she was concerned the ongoing leak would damage her new carpets and if so, she would hold the landlord liable for any damages.
4 August 2023	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said: it accepted it had not updated the resident after its visit in May 2023 about how it was going to repair the leak. This was due to a breakdown in communication between teams. the cyber security incident in June 2022, may have contributed to some data being lost and affected its communication. it was moving away from using a contractor to complete repairs. It would now complete them internally but there may be some short term delays while it made the transition. it would aim to provide a date as soon as possible. it offered compensation of £350, in recognition for the inconvenience caused.
31 August 2023	The resident was frustrated as the appointment for the day before had been cancelled but she had arranged childcare. She was unhappy because her home was a mess, and the ceiling had holes exposing pipework. She said it was affecting her health. She stated there were puddles in her kitchen.
12 October 2023	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said: its contract with the contractor ended on 31 July 2023, so its data on the repairs history was limited. In August 2023 it repaired defects in the toilet waste and the light fitting. on 27 September 2023, it resealed the shower tray, but the shower door was warped and would need replacing. once the door was ordered it would likely take 6 weeks to be “fulfilled” as it was a non-typical shaped shower. It suggested a weekly catch up update her. other aesthetic work such as boxing in the toilet waste and reskimming the ceiling should be completed after the shower was replaced. it would check the toilet was working when it returned to plaster. it awarded a further £215 compensation. Of which £50 was in relation to delays in providing a stage 2 response.
27 January 2024	The landlord installed a new shower tray, screen, door and waste.
1 February 2024	The resident reported a new leak from the new shower.
Referral to the Ombudsman	In February 2024, the resident contacted us because she said the kitchen ceiling started to “fall off”. She felt the landlord had not completed any repairs and was not responding to her calls and emails.
21 August 2024	The landlord informed us that upon review of the complaint, it would offer another £200 compensation. This was on the basis that it had taken too long to complete the repair and there had been delays in sourcing the tray and door. It felt it should have been more proactive since February 2024 to check that there were no further issues.

 

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 handling of the leak and the associated repairs
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

8. A further leak was reported after the new shower was installed on 27 January 2024. It appears this prompted the resident to refer her complaint to us. We note the landlord also reviewed its handling of the repair and the complaint at the same time and acknowledged further failings. We have considered the landlord’s further offer of compensation when deciding whether it has taken appropriate and proportionate steps to put things right. However, we have not assessed the landlord’s response to the report of the further leak in January 2024. This is because this matter has not been considered by the landlord through its formal complaints procedure. The resident may wish to raise a new complaint about how the landlord responded to this leak if she remains unhappy.
9. In communication to us, the resident has also raised concerns about black mould affecting the bathroom floorboards. While her concerns are noted, this did not form part of the complaint made on 12 July 2023, or the escalation request on 31 August 2023. It is therefore not a matter that has exhausted the complaints procedure. In the interest of fairness, the landlord should have the opportunity to investigate and respond to this first. As with the further shower leak, the resident may wish to raise this as a new complaint.

The handling of the leak and associated repairs

10. The resident reported a leak in November 2022. She reported that it was also affecting a light fitting in the kitchen ceiling. The records indicate the landlord attended on 5 January 2023, however there is no further information about what work it did during this visit. Given that the resident had reported concerns about the leak affecting the light fitting, the landlord should have raised an emergency job to ensure the area was made safe. We have seen no evidence that it did so and this is a failing.  It is also unclear what action, if any, the landlord took to resolve the leak at this time.
11. We note the landlord’s comments that the contract with this particular contractor had ended and as such some data was available. However, this is concerning as some information about repairs at the property should have been retained irrespective of whether the works are carried out by a contractor or in-house staff. Our Spotlight report on complaints about repairs 2019, noted that if a landlord contracts out its repairs service, the obligation to repair remains with the landlord and not the contractor. Landlords need to ensure that they have adequate oversight of their outsourced services.
12. The resident made a further report of a leak and light repair in the same location on 1 March 2023. The landlord raised the light repair as an emergency, and this was completed the following day in line with its repairs policy. An appointment was made for 14 March 2023, but for an unknown reason it was changed to 30 March 2023. At this appointment it was expected that the plumber would repair the leak and on 12 April 2023 it expected to repair the ceiling, which had been cut into. There is no accompanying report from the contractors visit to confirm what work it did.
13. The landlord also attended on 4 May 2023, suggesting that it could not complete the repair at the last appointment. At this appointment it found no leaks, but it found a 5mm gap at the base of the shower tray. This gap was re-sealed on 27 September 2023. It is unclear why this took a further 4 months. We have seen no evidence which suggests that this delay was unavoidable, or that the landlord was prevented from completing the work sooner.
14. The landlord attended again on 10 May 2023. It is unclear what prompted the attendance, however no signs of a leak were recorded. The resident advised that the leak was not continuous but occurred randomly and water would come through the spotlight in her kitchen. It was therefore recommended that a plumber should come back to investigate. This was reasonable. However, the landlord has acknowledged that it failed to follow up on this action in a timely manner. As a result, the resident incurred time and trouble chasing it for updates in June and July 2023.
15. The leak was reported again on 19 July 2023. The landlord appropriately attended the following day as an emergency repair as it was related to water leaking into the light fitting. The leak was observed on this occasion, and the repair was scheduled for 30 August 2023, but the landlord cancelled this. The resident expressed her frustration as the communication about this was poor and she incurred childcare costs. In its stage 2 response, the landlord appropriately recognised that it had not managed this change effectively.
16. Following installation of carpet protection on 14 September 2023, the landlord inspected the area above the kitchen ceiling. In or around September 2023 it tightened fittings, realigned the soil pipe, replaced valves and pipework. The landlord felt this resolved the leak. While the repair records contain some detail in relation to this repair, they are not sufficiently thorough. The stage 2 response refers to some work carried out in August 2023 where a defect was found in the toilet waste. However, this visit is not reflected in the landlord’s repair log. This repair was carried out inhouse, as opposed to by a contractor, and therefore the landlord should have ensured that better records were retained.
17. The resident informed the landlord that she believed a gap somewhere within the shower area was contributing to the leak. As a result, the landlord attended on 27 September 2023 to ensure the shower enclosure was watertight. It is unclear why it took so long to identify the cause of the leak given the numerous visits to the property leading up to this. However, on inspection of the shower, it arranged to replace the shower cubicle door as it was warped. It said it would take longer than usual to source the replacement door as it was not a typical shape. It appropriately explained this in its stage 2 response. It also said it would “make good” the associated repairs such as replastering once it was satisfied that the leak was resolved. This was a reasonable approach for it to organise the repairs in this order, and it appropriately explained this to the resident. A call with the resident to discuss the stage 2 response confirmed she was happy with this approach.
18. The shower repair was raised on 2 November 2023, indicating that the part arrived. The repair was scheduled for 6 December 2023, however the door and tray would not fit. This was rebooked for 27 January 2024. We recognise that the tray was not a standard size, and this contributed to the overall delay with the installation of this.
19. The landlord was also due to complete aesthetic repairs after the leak was fixed. It was unable to do so, because after the new shower tray was installed, the resident reported a new leak.
20. The landlord offered compensation totalling £515 for repair related failures. This consisted of £350 at stage 1 in recognition of:
    1. delays involved in getting the leak repairs completed,
    2. inconvenience to the household,
    3. the resident having to chase it,
    4. its failure to follow process and policy,
    5. the overall time taken to resolve the issue.
21. At stage 2 the landlord offered further compensation of £165 consisting of:
    1. £150 for the overall time taken to complete repairs, the resident having to chase it and inconvenience to the household.
    2. £15 for a missed appointment.
22. It was positive that the landlord reviewed its handling of the repair in August 2024. In doing so it identified further failures and offered additional compensation of £200. This was based on the length of time to complete the repair and included delays in sourcing parts.
23. Despite the landlord’s overall offer of £715, we do not consider this to be a proportionate offer. This is because its offer to review the handling of the repair came after the matter was referred to us. It also failed to assess its handling of the reported leak in November 2022, which had it done so, would have alerted it to further delays in completing the repair. Furthermore, it missed the opportunity to put things right before the complaints process was exhausted, when it reasonably could have done so. As a result, we will order further compensation of £450 comprising of:
    1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to follow its policy when the leak was reported in November 2024.
    2. £50 for the time and trouble incurred by the resident having to raise the issue with us.
    3. £200 for the distress and inconvenience for not completing the aesthetic repairs in a timely manner.
24. This is separate to the further offer of £200 that the landlord made in August 2024.
25. We have been unable to establish through our investigation if the follow on works have been completed. However, it is noted that the resident informed us in July 2024 that there were issues with her kitchen ceiling. Therefore, we will make an order for the landlord to contact the resident to confirm what work has been completed and what is outstanding. If there are still follow on repairs that need completing, we will order the landlord to review whether further compensation for the delays is appropriate.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

26. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant code in this case is the March 2022 edition. The landlord published an interim complaints policy which was in place after June 2022 when it was victim to a cyber attack. Its timescales were extended to 20 days for a stage 1 response and 40 days for a stage 2 response. It has since updated its complaints policy to comply with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
27. The landlord acknowledged the complaint in 1 working day. It provided its stage 1 response within 17 working days. The landlord acknowledged the escalation requestion in 1 working day. It provided a stage 2 response in 29 working days. Both responses were issued in accordance with its interim complaints policy.
28. In its stage 2 response it awarded compensation of £50 for the delay in providing its response. Given the above it is unclear why it concluded there had been delays, as we have not identified a delay when assessing the complaint against its interim complaints policy.
29. However, during the complaints process, the landlord should have assessed its handling of the leak from when the resident first reported it. Had it done so, it would have identified it did not handle this in accordance with its policy. It missed the opportunity to address this and put things right.
30. It was positive that the landlord reviewed its handling of the matter after the complaint was brought to us. However, it missed an opportunity to assess its handling of the issues up to the point the shower was repaired in January 2024. In its stage 2 response it acknowledged that there could be further delays in sourcing parts and that its approach was to wait until the leak was fixed before committing to follow on repairs. It would have been reasonable for it to recognise the further inconvenience due to these issues and put things right earlier. As a result, we have made a finding of service failure and order the landlord to pay £50 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for the failures identified and where the landlord did not appropriately acknowledge and remedy these.

Learning

31. It was positive that the landlord reviewed its handling of the repair after the resident brought the complaint to us. On review it identified further failings which it appropriately offered a further remedy for. However, it should have adopted a more wholistic approach and considered the delays associated to the outstanding aesthetic repairs.
32. When the repair resulted in a further leak, the landlord could have considered whether it was appropriate for it to handle the new leak repair as a separate complaint.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

33. There were gaps in the landlord’s repair records which have made it a challenge to understand what work was undertaken at certain visits and why some appointments were cancelled. This contributed to delays in the handling of the repair and indicates an issue with its record keeping.
34. Now that the landlord is operating an in house system for completing repairs, it should review its processes to ensure that it is retaining accurate and relevant data relating to its properties.

Communication

35. The landlord’s communication with the resident at times was not good, particularly when appointments were changed. We appreciate that it is not always possible to predict this, but it could consider how to make improvements on its updates when unexpected changes are necessary.