Clarion Housing Association Limited (202316810)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316810

Clarion Housing Association Limited

23 September 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak.
2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The resident’s property has an air source heat pump that provides heating and hot water for the property. During the complaint, the resident and her husband were in contact with the landlord. For clarity, this report refers to contact from both the resident and her husband as “the resident”.
4. On 1 April 2023, the resident reported a leak from the heating system. The landlord attended the same day. It reported the leak had stopped as the water was isolated and found it needed to order parts for the heating system. It attended to fix the heating system on 4 April 2023.
5. The resident made a complaint on 24 April 2023. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to the leak. She said she believed it was caused by an “error” by a plumber for the landlord.
6. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 19 May 2023. It gave a history of the leak and said it isolated and mopped up water the day it was reported. It said it had then fixed the heating system several days later. It did not uphold the complaint.
7. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response and asked it to open a stage 2 complaint on 19 May 2023. She said the information in its stage 1 response was “wrong”. She said the leak was caused by the heating system being incorrectly installed, and she wanted compensation for damage to her flooring.
8. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 21 August 2023. It apologised for the delay in sending the stage 2 complaint response and for the inaccuracies in the stage 1 complaint response. It offered £200 in compensation for its complaint handling. It disputed the resident’s claim it had not maintained and installed the heating system correctly. It said it was installed to manufacturers guidelines. It said it had serviced the system in November 2021, 2022, and planned to in November 2023. It said it would not pay compensation for the resident’s flooring and said she should make a claim with her contents insurer.
9. The resident contacted us on 3 April 2024 and asked us to investigate her complaint. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the matter and that it had not compensated her for the “£1,000” in damaged possessions the leak caused. She said its statement in the complaint response about annual checks of the heating system were inaccurate. She said it had done a check about a month before, but that was the first time in 3 years.

Assessment and findings

Scope of our investigation

10. We acknowledge the situation was distressing and inconvenient for the resident. We do not seek to dispute the resident’s claim she incurred costs. However, it is not within our remit to establish liability, so we cannot calculate or award damages. This would normally be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. Our role is to investigate whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures. We have therefore assessed whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of costs she incurred was reasonable in the circumstances. What we have not done is made a determination on whether the landlord was or was not liable for the damage to the resident’s possessions.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak.

11. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation.
12. The landlord’s responsive repairs and maintenance policy says it has 2 categories of responsive repair. Emergency, which it will attend to within 24 hours and non-emergency, which it will attend to within 28 days.
13. When the resident reported the leak on 1 April 2023, the landlord attended the same day. This is evidence it treated the repair as an emergency. Considering what was reported, this was appropriate in the circumstances. The landlord completed the follow on repairs 3 days later. Again, this is evidence it took the repair seriously and completed it with the appropriate urgency. It is evident the leak was distressing for the resident. However, the landlord handled the repair reasonably in the circumstances.
14. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response contained inaccuracies about the repairs and the events that occurred after the leak. (a fact the landlord later accepted). This was inappropriate and evidence the landlord’s stage 1 complaint investigation into the matter lacked the appropriate thoroughness.
15. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response accepted, and apologised for, the inaccuracies of its stage 1 response. This was appropriate in the circumstances and showed learning. It set out its position in relation to the installation and service history of the heating system. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
16. We note the resident’s concerns about the lack of annual checks to the system. As part of our investigation the landlord supplied us with evidence it completed annual checks to the system in November 2022, and October 2023. This was reasonable in the circumstances. We acknowledge the resident’s view the leak was caused by the landlord’s failure to maintain the system. However, there is evidence the landlord completed annual checks of the system. It is therefore reasonable to conclude, while unfortunate, the leak was unforeseeable and not a result of a failing by the landlord.
17. The comments in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response in relation to the alleged damage to the resident’s personal possessions was inappropriate. The resident claimed the damage to the floor was caused by a repair issue the landlord was responsible for. We do not seek to make a determination on whether the resident’s flooring was damaged by the leak. But it was unreasonable the landlord did not advise the resident on how to make a claim through its liability insurer. The resident was inconvenienced by its failure to pass on details of its liability insurer.
18. The landlord should pass on its liability insurer’s details to the resident now if it has a liability insurer so she can raise a claim if she wants to. Matters of insurance fall outside the complaints process and the insurer is a separate organisation from the landlord. Therefore, we cannot comment on the insurer’s actions if a claim is made to it, or the likely outcome of such a claim.
19. Considering the error identified above we have determined there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of this matter. Our remedies guidance says up to £100 may be appropriate to put right errors where there was a minor failure by the landlord. This is when there were errors in the service it provided, and it did not appropriately acknowledge these and/or fully put them right. We order the landlord to pay the resident £100 in compensation to put right the errors in its response to the resident’s reports of a leak.

The landlord’s complaint handling

20. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. The timeframes in its procedure mirror that of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code sets out our expectations of a landlord’s complaint handling practices. The Code states landlords must send stage 1 complaint responses within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint responses within 20 working days.
21. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response 17 working days after she complained. This was a delay and outside of the timeframes set out in the Code. The landlord appropriately apologised for the delay in its complaint response. This was appropriate to put right the inconvenience caused by the short delay. It is worth noting any delay would have caused some level of inconvenience to the resident, overall, the delay was not excessive.
22. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was sent 65 working days after the resident made the stage 2 complaint. This was a far lengthier delay that inconvenienced the resident. The landlord appropriately apologised and offered compensation for the delay. This is evidence it showed learning and sought to put things right.
23. The landlord also used its stage 2 response to show learning about the errors in its stage 1 response. It appropriately apologised for the inaccuracies and shortcomings of the investigation. This showed transparency. We welcome the fact it offered compensation for the errors it identified in its stage 1 complaint investigation and response.
24. The landlord offered a total of £200 in compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by errors in its complaint handling. Our remedies guidance says an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident where a landlord’s errors adversely affected the resident. Considering this, we have determined the landlord’s offer of £200 for its complaint handling was appropriate to put right the errors we identified in our investigation.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak.
26. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord made an offer of redress which, in our opinion, resolved errors in its complaint handling.

Orders

27. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the errors identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
    2. Pay the resident £100 in compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by errors in its response to the resident’s reports of a leak.
    3. Provide the relevant details about how the resident can make a claim on its insurance for the alleged damage to her possessions.

Recommendations

28. We recommend the landlord pays the resident the £200 in compensation it offered for errors in its complaint handling. (If it has not already done so). Our finding of reasonable redress is based on an understanding that this compensation was/will be paid.