Clarion Housing Association Limited (202342880)

Decision
Case ID	202342880
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Clarion Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	14 October 2025

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which is a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 29 September 2022. The property is a 2 bedroom first floor flat.
On 24 July 2023 the landlord raised a works order to repair a leaking window seal. It carried out works but the leak was ongoing. In October the landlord found a leak in the roof which was repaired however the leak continued. During May 2024 the landlord concluded that it was caused by an overflow pipe. The resident told us that although the leak has been resolved she wanted us to investigate her complaint. This was because the landlord did not put right damage caused by the leak.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak into her bathroom.
We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak into her bathroom.
2. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Response to the report of a leak into the bathroom.

The landlord acknowledged some of its delays and communication failures. It offered compensation to try to put things right.
The landlord failed to demonstrate learning which is an essential part of the complaint resolution process.
The landlord failed to use the complaints process to ensure that remediation works were completed.

Complaint handling.

While we consider that the landlord’s complaint handling could reasonably have been improved, it has recognised the impact on the resident and has taken proportionate steps to put things right. As such, an offer of reasonable redress has been made in the circumstances.

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 11 November 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,050 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in its response to the resident’s reports of a leak in the bathroom. 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 11 November 2025
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by a suitably qualified person. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date.   What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects the bathroom including the window board and toilet. It should also inspect the floorboards in the bathroom and hallway. They should produce a written report with photographs. The survey report must set out: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards. The most likely cause of the damage to the bathroom. Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective repair to the issue (if the landlord is responsible). The likely timescales to commence and complete the work. Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works.	No later than 11 November 2025
4	Review order The landlord is ordered to carry out a review of the case and identify what it will do differently to ensure the failures do not reoccur. The landlord must confirm the outcome of the review in writing to the resident and the Ombudsman by the due date.	No later than 25 November 2025

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The reasonable redress finding is dependent on the landlord paying the resident £250 it has offered if it has not already done so.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
20 March 2024	During a phone call with the landlord the resident asked for an update on works because she had not received any communication. This was treated as a formal complaint.
28 May 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It: Said it had identified the cause of water ingress into the property. Set out follow on works including remediation works to the bathroom. Acknowledged and apologised that it had failed to progress works. Provided an explanation for some of its failures. Offered £650 compensation comprised of: £50 for a delay in its complaint response. £600 for the delay in resolving the leak.
19 August 2024	The resident contacted the landlord because she did not think the amount of compensation reflected the delays she’d experienced. She said she’d previously requested to escalate her complaint online on 6 August 2024 but did not receive a response.
27 August 2024	The landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s request to escalate her complaint.
23 September 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response as follows: It confirmed its position regarding ongoing works to the bathroom. It apologised that its investigation into the leak was “complex and time consuming.” Communication could have been improved and it had noted the issues for future learning. The resident had tried to escalate her complaint on 6 August but had not received a response. She raised it again but it was not acknowledged until 27 August. It offered £450 compensation in addition to the £650 offered at stage 1 comprised of: £200 for ongoing delays with repairs. £100 for lack of updates. £150 for its complaint handling failures at stage 2.
25 February 2025	In a call to us the resident said the landlord took too long to repair the leak and works remained outstanding.
5 June 2025	The landlord wrote to the resident to say it had reviewed the case. It offered an additional £50 for delays at stage 1 complaint.

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 complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak in her bathroom.
Finding	Maladministration

On 24 July 2023 the landlord was put on notice about a leak around the bathroom window seal. The landlord resealed the window.
It took the landlord until 1 November 2023 to identify and resolve the suspected cause of the leak.
When the landlord attended on 17 November 2023 to carry out a mould wash it noted the leak was ongoing. The landlord inspected the property a month later on 15 December 2023.
The landlord attended on 29 December 2023 to clear the gutters which were thought to be causing the leak.
It returned to carry out internal remediation works to the bathroom on 23 January 2024. Works could not be completed because the wall was “still soaking.”
The landlord’s records dated March and April 2024 noted there was a delay allocating works to a contractor. It failed to chase the contractor for a response resulting in a month long delay. It therefore failed to comply with its repairs policy to offer an appointment within 28 calendar days of the repair being reported.
The landlord’s stage 1 response of 25 May 2024 acknowledged its failures. While this was positive it failed to set out what it would do differently to prevent a reoccurrence.
It confirmed it was due to attend on 29 May 2024 to carry out works. It also confirmed it would put right damage caused. It said its surveyor would ensure works progressed.
The landlord attended on 29 May 2024 to carry out works including blocking a redundant overflow pipe. It believed the leak had now been resolved.
It said it would call the resident by 28 June 2024 to ensure the areas had dried out. Its surveyor would contact the resident by 5 July 2024 to progress the bathroom remediation works.
While this was positive it was almost a year after the leak was first reported which was unreasonably long.
The landlord actively monitored the drying out process. However there’s no evidence that it contacted the resident as agreed in its complaint response.
This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who said it was her reason for escalating her complaint.
The landlord attended to complete follow on works during August and September 2024. Works included refixing the timber window frame.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 23 September 2024 said there was no evidence the surveyor’s deadline of 5 July was met. However when it inspected the property on 11 September 2024 it did not identify any further works.
We have not seen any evidence of the landlord’s inspection on 11 September 2024 which is a record keeping failure.
An internal email dated 15 October 2024 confirmed the leaks, condensation, damp and mould team was closing the case. The surveyor would monitor works to the flooring and window board. It is unclear why this was necessary if there were no further works identified as set out above.
In an email to us dated 2 October 2025 the resident sent dated photographs showing the window board and flooring needed repair. The toilet was also sitting at an angle.
Our dispute resolution principles are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord acknowledged some of its delays and communication failures. It offered compensation to try to put things right.
The landlord identified what had gone wrong but failed to identify what it would do differently to prevent a recurrence.
The landlord failed to use the complaints resolution process to ensure that remediation works were completed. The compensation offered by the landlord failed to provide redress for the ongoing distress and inconvenience.
Therefore, the failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £1,050 compensation. It may deduct the compensation it has offered if this has already been paid.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaint. The relevant Code in this case was the 2024 edition (April 2024). The landlord has published a complaints policy which complied with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
The landlord responded at stage 1 within 46 working days (20 March to 28 May 2024). It had 5 working days to acknowledge and a further 10 working days to respond to the complaint. There is no evidence that it acknowledged the complaint and its response was outside the timescales set out in the Code and its policy.
The landlord responded at stage 2 within 25 working days (19 August to 23 September 2024). It had 5 working days to acknowledge and a further 20 working days to respond to the complaint. It acknowledged the complaint on 27 August which was 1 day over target. Its response was issued within time.
The stage 2 complaint response acknowledged and apologised for the delay in escalating the resident’s complaint originally raised on 6 August 2024. It offered £150 compensation.
On 5 June 2025 the landlord wrote to the resident to say it had reviewed the case. It identified and apologised for the delays at stage 1 and offered £50 compensation.
We welcome the landlord’s decision to review its complaint handling. However, this was over a year after the stage 1 response was issued. Furthermore, it already offered £50 compensation at stage 1 for complaint handling failures.Therefore it’s unclear why it thought it had not.
While we acknowledge the duplication did not cause detriment to the resident it suggests a record keeping or process error.
The compensation offered by the landlord is in line with our Remedies Guidance where the failures had an adverse effect on the resident. Therefore, we consider the landlord has taken proportionate steps to put things right.