Clarion Housing Association Limited (202346216)

Decision
Case ID	202346216
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Clarion Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Shorthold Tenancy
Date	20 November 2025

Background

1. The resident moved into the property in September 2022. She experienced a leak in October 2022 which caused damage in her property.  She suffers from numerous respiratory illnesses, including asthma, sleep apnoea and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of water ingress.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found the landlord responsible for:
   1. Service failure in its response to reports of water ingress.
   2. Reasonable redress in its response to the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Response to reports of water ingress

4. The landlord’s records do not reflect that it carried out timely, robust investigations and that it explored all potential sources of water ingress at the earliest opportunity. This led to delays in resolving the leak.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord missed an opportunity to escalate to stage 2 and was then 2 days late in providing its response. However, it acknowledged the delay, apologised and awarded appropriate compensation.

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 18 December 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1085 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified. This amount includes the £885 offered in the landlord’s complaints process, which can be deducted if it has already been paid.   This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. If the £885 was paid previously, evidence to confirm this will also need to be provided.	No later than 18 December 2025

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident the £115 compensation it awarded through the complaint procedure, in relation to complaint handling and a missed appointment, if it has not done so already. The finding of reasonable redress is based on the understanding that this compensation will be paid.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
6 June 2023	The resident complained to the landlord. She said she had suffered a leak in October 2022, which lasted 3 days. The leak caused damage to the walls and ceiling which the landlord had not repaired.
13 June 2023	The landlord responded at stage 1. It upheld the complaint and said: After receiving the report of the leak on 23 October 2023 it attended six times up to 24 May 2023. An appointment had been scheduled for 18 July 2023 to repair the ceiling and walls. It acknowledged a service failure due to delays repairing damage following the leak. It apologised for this and awarded £300 compensation.
13 October 2023	The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 as the leak had since returned and the ceiling had not been fixed. In a phone call from the landlord on 25 October to discuss the complaint, the resident also said that the leak had caused damp and mould in her property.
8 December 2023	The landlord responded at stage 2. It said: The leak had been resolved that day. The source of the leak had been identified by cutting back the ceiling and inspecting. Follow on works had been raised to repair the damage and it would complete an inspection in the coming months to ensure the leak had been fully resolved. It had attended on 3 and 17 November and completed works which resolved the damp and mould issue. It had awarded £885 compensation for delays in resolving the leak, £100 for complaint handling failures and £15 for a missed appointment.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought her complaint to us as she was still experiencing issues with water ingress. The leak last returned in October 2025 and as of November 2025 it remained unresolved. She felt that the landlord prioritised rent payments over its treatment of residents and wanted the landlord to acknowledge the poor experience she had while dealing with the leak.

 

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	Response to reports of water ingress
Finding	Service failure

6. We are aware that following the complaints process the resident instructed a solicitor to act on her behalf for a disrepair claim. The claim followed the pre-action protocol, and a settlement was reached out of court in February 2025. The landlord agreed to pay £3000 in damages and to complete all works to address the water ingress and related damage by 17 June 2025.  This investigation has not considered this settlement when considering the complaint.
7. The resident reported a leak in her living room on 23 October 2022. She believed it was coming from the flat above. The landlord recorded the repair as an emergency and its records show it attended within 24 hours in line with its repairs policy.
8. There were further reports of the leak returning in November 2022 and March 2023. The landlord raised jobs to fix the leak and later scheduled remedial works for damage caused. While the evidence shows that the landlord responded to repairs categorised as an emergency within policy timeframes, there were at least 3 occasions where routine repairs took longer than the 28 working days stated in its policy.
9. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged service failures in its handling of repairs following the water leak and apologised. It awarded £300 compensation for the inconvenience caused. This was a reasonable response. It showed it considered the impact on the resident and sought to put things right.
10. The leak returned in July 2023, and over the next 5 months there were 4 more reports of water ingress. On each occasion the landlord logged a job, and records showed it attended in line with its policy.
11. As the leak remained unresolved, the resident asked her local councillor to contact the landlord. In its response to the councillor, the landlord said it needed to investigate whether the property had appropriate vents and drip trays inside the brickwork near the balcony.
12. The landlord did not provide evidence that it carried out a satisfactory investigation into the brickwork at that stage. Ten months later, in June 2024, a surveyor reported vents needed to be repaired or replaced and cavity trays were leaking and needed to be installed correctly, in the brickwork near the balcony. The landlord did not demonstrate that it carried out investigations into potential sources of the leak at the earliest opportunity, which could have enabled timely and effective remedial works.
13. As part of her complaint, the resident said water ingress had caused damp and mould in her property. As she suffered with respiratory illnesses, she worried about the impact this would have on her. The landlord promptly raised a job and records show it attended within 28 days, in line with its policy. When another report came, it again attended and completed works, such as a mould wash and applying anti mould paint, in line with its policy timescales. There were no further reports of damp or mould at the time.
14. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said the leak was resolved after work it had completed that day. It recognised there had been service failures in its handling of the repairs and they had inconvenienced the resident. It awarded an additional £885 compensation. This was reasonable and shows that the landlord considered the impact of six more months of delays after stage 1.
15. It was positive that the landlord acknowledged delays through the complaints process and tried to put things right. However, its repair records do not show what work was carried out for each repair raised. The lack of detail likely contributed to delays in completing repairs and finding a permanent solution to the water ingress. Efficient record keeping and effective systems allow landlords to track the status of repairs, ensuring timely completion. While the landlord’s repairs policy says it monitors works in progress, its records were not consistent with this.
16. Furthermore, as part of this investigation the landlord was asked to provide documents and other evidence relevant to its handling of repairs. Only limited information was received, which did not include significant documents such as surveyor reports from July and November 2023. The landlord stated that some information could not be obtained. Due to the lack of evidence, and poor detail in the repair logs, we are unable to satisfactorily conclude that the landlord acted in line with its obligations or completed recommended repairs to resolve the leak.
17. On the same day as the stage 2 response, it was reported the leak had returned. Events after the complaints process showed the landlord carried out thorough investigations to identify the source of the leak. It completed actions such as dye tests, a survey, and raised jobs recommended by the surveyor. While it was positive the landlord took such action, it would have been reasonable for it to adopt this approach earlier to avoid unnecessary delays and inconvenience to the resident.
18. Overall, although the landlord appeared to respond promptly to most reports, poor record keeping meant it could not show that subsequent work was adequate in attempting to resolve the leak. The records did not confirm robust investigations were completed in a timely manner or that possible causes of water ingress were explored at the earliest opportunity. While the landlord offered a reasonable amount of compensation during the complaint response, the repairs had not resolved the problem as the leak returned. Therefore, we have found service failure in the landlords handling of reports of water ingress and further compensation is ordered.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

19. The resident raised a complaint on 6 June 2023. The landlord responded on 13 June, 5 working days later. This was in line with its complaints policy, which says that stage 1 complaints should be responded to within 20 working days.
20. On 2 October 2023, a local councillor contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf to request escalation to stage 2. The landlord’s complaints policy confirms that complaints from a representative should be handled in line with its procedures. Therefore, the landlord should have acknowledged the escalation request within 10 working days. It did not do so. This was unreasonable and delayed the resident’s ability to progress her complaint.
21. The resident submitted a further escalation request herself on 13 October, which took her unnecessary time and trouble. The landlord acknowledged this on 25 October, in line with its policy. It said it aimed to respond within 20 working days and would update the resident by 22 November if the response was not ready.
22. On 22 November 2023, the landlord informed the resident that it could not yet provide a response and now aimed to do so by 6 December 2023. This was appropriate, as its complaints policy requires it to update the resident and provide a revised timescale when a response cannot be issued on time.
23. The landlord responded on 8 December 2023, 2 days later than the revised target. It awarded £50 compensation for the delay. This was reasonable and in line with its compensation policy, that says it can award payments of £50 when it failed to meet service standards for responses but where the failure had no significant impact.
24. In its response, the landlord acknowledged it lacked records to confirm an operative attended a scheduled appointment on 14 November 2023. It apologised and awarded £15 compensation, in line with its policy for missed appointments without 24 hours’ notice.
25. As part of its stage 2 investigation, the landlord identified that it should have awarded a higher amount of compensation at stage 1. It apologised for the error in applying its policy and awarded an additional £50. This was appropriate and the amount was consistent with its compensation policy.
26. The Ombudsman found the landlord’s actions and compensation were proportionate to the failings and we find they amount to reasonable redress. It showed it had considered the impact on the resident and offered compensation in line with its policy. If the landlord had not acknowledged its failings and taken steps to put things right, there would have been a finding of service failure.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. The landlord’s repair logs were unclear about what work was completed under each order, and it was unable to provide some information for this investigation. The landlord is encouraged to reflect on how to ensure its records are accurate and detailed. Taking into account the guidance we have published on knowledge and information management.