Clarion Housing Association Limited (202330826)

Background

1. At the time of the complaint, the resident lived in a one-bedroom ground floor flat. In January 2023, a burst pipe caused damage to her home and belongings. The resident lives with physical and mental health conditions, which the landlord was aware of.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about how the landlord handled:
   1. a report of a burst pipe
   2. the subsequent repairs
   3. the resident’s request for compensation for damaged belongings
   4. the resident’s complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlords handling of the subsequent repairs.
   2. There was service failure in the handling of the resident’s complaint.
   3. There was reasonable redress in the handling of a report of a burst pipe.
   4. There was reasonable redress in the landlords handling of the request for compensation for damaged belongings.

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

Summary of reasons

Burst pipe

4. The landlord did not attend to the burst pipes within its emergency repairs timeframe. The landlord recognised this and awarded compensation in its complaint response. This was fair and proportionate to the failings.

The subsequent repairs

5. There was a delay in completing the repairs after the burst pipe. The landlord accepted this in its stage 2 complaint response and offered compensation. The landlord was not proactive in its communication about the works that would be done, and it did not go far enough in recognising the impact on the resident.

Compensation for damaged belongings

6. The landlord referred the resident to her home contents insurer and later it’s insurer. This was a reasonable approach to take.

Complaint handling

7. There were delays in the landlord’s complaint handling which it recognised and offered compensation for, this was reasonable. However, the landlord did not respond to all parts of the resident’s stage 2 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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we have not looked at

8. To be fair to both parties, this investigation has focused on the issues the resident raised in her formal complaint. This is because the landlord must be given a reasonable opportunity to investigate and respond before we get involved. The resident told us in recent communication she believes the burst pipe happened because the pipes were not insulated. This was not raised as part of the original complaint. If she is still concerned about this, she can raise the issue directly with the landlord so they can respond.

What we have looked at

9. The resident first called about a leak in her kitchen to the landlord’s out-of-hours service on 22 January 2023. She made several follow-up calls the same day as the situation got worse, and the leak became a burst pipe. Although the landlord has not shared call logs from the out-of-hours team, it does not dispute the resident’s account. The landlord’s Repairs policy says it should respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours.
10. The landlord’s out-of-hours team said they raised the job with a contractor, but the contractor did not attend the same day. The next day, the landlord logged the issue as an uncontainable leak and sent a contractor to the property. Because of this delay, the contractor arrived around 28 hours after the resident first reported the leak. They carried out an emergency repair to stop the water and said the resident needed to move out so further work could take place.
11. The landlord’s Repairs policy says that it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours. In this case, the landlord did not identify the urgency of the situation or escalate it appropriately. It also failed to act when the property remained unattended, despite the severity of the issue and repeated contact from the resident. This caused distress to the resident.
12. The landlord did not meet its emergency response timeframe because its contractor failed to attend the job within 24 hours. This left the resident unable to stop the water leak, which caused her distress due to the risk of damage to her belongings. The landlord acknowledged this failure in its complaint response and offered £400 compensation. It did not break down the amount, but it is reasonable to assume that £200 was for the initial delay and £200 for the subsequent repairs. The landlord’s Compensation policy says it may offer compensation in this range where there has been service failure without significant impact. We consider this to be reasonable redress, as it reflects a fair recognition of the service failure and the distress it caused the resident.

13. The landlord recognised that repairs could not be completed while the resident remained in the property and arranged a temporary move to a hotel starting on 24 January 2023.It stayed in contact with the resident during this time. The resident chased for updates which shows the landlord did not maintain consistent communication. This added to the resident’s uncertainty during a disruptive period. This lack of regular updates fell short of its responsibility to support the resident during a decant and contributed to her distress.
14. A surveyor visited the property on 26 January 2023 and told the resident that her temporary move would need to be extended. On 13 February 2023, the resident raised concerns that no repairs had started. The landlord’s Repairs policy says non-emergency repairs should be completed as soon as possible, and within 28 days. Seventeen days after the burst pipe, no works had started, and by 14 March 2023, the property still needed time to dry out. While it is reasonable that drying can take time, the landlord failed to explain the delay or manage the resident’s expectations. This was a failure in service and its own policy commitment to timely repairs. The lack of communication added to the resident’s distress and undermined her confidence in the landlord’s handling of the situation.
15. On 29 March 2023 the landlord confirmed it had completed the work. However, the resident said she was unhappy with the condition of her home. The landlord decided to postpone her return while it reviewed her concerns. This was a reasonable response, as it showed the landlord was willing to consider the resident’s feedback before she moved back.
16. The landlord carried out further works and arranged a full clean of the property after the resident raised concerns. It was appropriate to respond, but it should have identified these issues earlier. The landlord’s Leaks, Condensation, Damp and Mould policy says it will communicate with residents clearly and regularly about any actions it plans to take, and any actions residents are advised to take. The landlord did not follow this commitment. It failed to involve the resident in planning the works, which led to delays and increased her frustration. This shows poor customer care, and the landlord missed opportunities to prevent avoidable disruption by not engaging with the resident early.
17. During April and early May 2023, the resident repeatedly contacted the landlord to ask about returning home. The Decant policy says the landlord should provide regular updates and agree the frequency with the resident. That the resident had to chase for information, shows the landlord did not meet its own standards. This caused distress and uncertainty. The landlord should have communicated more proactively.
18. The resident returned home on 3 May 2023 after being decanted for 3 and a half months. The delay was partly due to drying time and the landlord removing the dehumidifier too soon which delayed the start to the works. The resident also requested additional works, and she had to chase the completion of these. The landlord acknowledged the delay and offered an apology and compensation. This shows it accepted it had not met its service standards. However, the apology came after the disruption, and the compensation did not fully reflect the impact on the resident.
19. Some issues were still unresolved after the resident returned home, including a disagreement about decorating. The landlord explained why it was not responsible for decorating, which was a reasonable approach and in line with its obligations. However, the landlord could have done more to consider the resident’s health and how the unresolved issues were affecting her daily life. Its Repairs policy says that in exceptional circumstances, it may agree to carry out works that are not normally its responsibility. Given the resident’s health needs, the landlord could have explored this further even if it did not change its position, it could have provided an explanation.
20. The landlord offered £200 compensation for the delay in completing repairs. We explained earlier in this report how this amount was broken down. This amount aligns with its Compensation policy, which allows for payments in this range where there has been a service failure without significant impact. However, the lack of transparency in how the amount was calculated made it difficult for the resident to understand what the compensation covered. More importantly, the delay in repairs and poor communication did have a significant impact. The resident was decanted for over 3 months, experienced uncertainty about when she could return home, and had to chase for updates throughout the process.
21. While the landlord’s compensation offer goes some way to acknowledging the service failings, it does not fully reflect the impact on the resident. The landlord did not explain the reasons for delays, failed to communicate what works would be completed, did not consider the resident’s needs around decorating, and did not provide regular updates. These failings caused avoidable distress, confusion, and inconvenience during the decant period. We’ve therefore ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £150 in recognition of these failures. This amount reflects the cumulative impact of poor communication, lack of early engagement, and failure to consider the resident’s individual circumstances. It is proportionate to the level of distress and inconvenience caused and is in line with our approach to compensation where there has been a serious service failure without lasting impact.

What we have not looked at

22. The resident told us the situation had a negative impact on her health and wellbeing. We cannot say if the landlord’s action or inaction directly caused an impact to the resident’s health. These matters are better suited for consideration by a court where medical experts can provide independent evidence. However, we can consider the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced, and how the landlord responded to her concerns.
23. The resident made an insurance claim for damage caused by the burst pipe in the property. The landlord is responsible for insuring the building and making sure residents know how to get advice and information about insurance claims. However, we cannot comment on the outcome of any insurance claims. We only look at what the landlord did, and we do not have any authority over the landlord’s insurance company. That said, we have looked at how the landlord responded to the residents reports of damaged belongings and whether this caused any distress or inconvenience.

What we have looked at

24. After the resident’s furniture was removed on 2 February 2023, she raised concerns about damage to her belongings. The landlord phoned her and asked for photos of each damaged item to pass to its insurance team. This was a reasonable step, as it helped the landlord gather evidence to support any potential claim and was in line with its responsibility to assess reported damage. However, the landlord missed an opportunity to also advise the resident to contact her own home contents insurer. This could have helped her explore other options for compensation and reduced any confusion or delay.
25. On 13 February 2023 the landlord sent an email confirming that the resident could raise a complaint or submit an insurance claim for the damaged items. It also clarified that she could pursue either option or both. This was a reasonable step to ensure the resident understood her rights and available routes for redress.
26. On 10 May 2023, the resident provided the landlord with a breakdown of damages, raising concerns about her health and the condition of her possessions. Despite the seriousness of these concerns, the landlord did not raise a formal insurance claim until 24 July 2023—over 2 months later. This delay likely added to the resident’s distress. The landlord acknowledged this delay in its stage 2 complaint response and offered £50 compensation, in line with its Compensation policy for service delays. Overall, the landlord met its responsibilities in referring and supporting the claim, and its actions in putting right the delays and any inconvenience caused and provided reasonable redress.

27. At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord was operating under an interim complaints policy. This policy stated that stage 1 complaints would be acknowledged within 10 working days and responded to within 20 working days, with updates provided if an extension was needed. For stage 2 complaints, the policy allowed 10 working days for acknowledgement and 40 working days for a response. These timeframes did not meet the Complaint Handling Code, but the landlord had introduced them while recovering from a cyber security breach. This context reasonably explains the temporary timescales.
28. The landlord took 78 days to issue its stage 1 complaint response. Although this was outside its stated timescale, it remained in contact with the resident during this period. The landlord acknowledged the delay and offered £100 compensation. This was a reasonable way to recognise the inconvenience caused by the delayed response.
29. The landlord issued its stage 2 response within 27 days of the resident’s request. This was within the timescale set out in its interim policy and showed an improvement in its complaint handling.
30. The resident said in her stage 2 complaint that her health made it hard for her to unpack. The landlord did not reply to this. It did not respond to a key part of the resident’s complaint, which related to her health and ability to settle back into her home. This caused further distress after a delayed return to her property. We have found service failure and ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident.
31. The landlord has since updated its complaints policy, which now meets the requirements of the Code. This shows the landlord has taken steps to improve its service and prevent similar issues in future.

Learning

32. The landlord did not identify the urgency of the situation or escalate it, even though the property remained unattended and the resident made repeated contact. Landlords should have robust processes to recognise emergency repairs and act within policy timeframes. Failure to do so can leave residents without essential services and increase health and safety risks.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

33. The landlord’s records did not show effective monitoring of the repair or escalation after missed attendance. Accurate records allow landlords to track progress, identify risks, and respond promptly. Weak record keeping can lead to missed opportunities to resolve urgent issues and repeated contact from residents.

Communication

34. In this case there was no agreed action plan. The landlords Leaks, Condensation, Damp and Mould policy said it would communicate clearly what actions it would take. Regular and proactive communication helps reduce uncertainty and prevents residents from needing to chase for information. When updates are missed, residents can feel ignored and frustrated, which is not reasonable. A structured approach to communication improves trust and overall service experience.