From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202404306)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202404306

Clarion Housing Association Limited

22 May 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 decision not to replace all the subfloor tiling in the property.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord in a 1-bedroom property. She has a physical disability, which the landlord is aware of.
  2. Between August 2023 and May 2024 following reports from the resident that the subfloor tiles in her home were damaged. The landlord inspected the issue and offered to replace only the affected tiles. On 14 May 2024 the resident submitted a formal complaint. She described the flooring as unhygienic and unsafe and was unhappy with the proposal to only replace or repair individual tiles. She also raised concerns about mismatched colours and requested that the landlord replace all the tiles.
  3. On 13 June 2024 the landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process. It said that although it had offered to repair the damaged flooring, the resident declined its offer. It explained it focused on functionality over appearance and would replace items on a like-for-like basis where possible, or with the closest available match. It confirmed its willingness to repair the affected subfloor tiles.
  4. On 17 July 2024 the resident asked to escalate the complaint. She said she had refused the repair 3 times because the landlord had proposed using mismatched tiles. On 16 August 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 final response. The landlord upheld its original stage 1 position. It said that unless special circumstances applied, such as the need for aids or adaptations, it only provided flooring in the bathroom and kitchen. It confirmed it was not required to match colours or patterns exactly and would not replace the entire flooring if only part of it was damaged. It remained willing to repair the damaged tiles so that the resident could apply her own floor on top if she wished.
  5. The resident brought her complaint to this Service. She said the flooring was uneven and worsening, and that she had tripped and fallen several times. She was also concerned that the tiles might contain asbestos.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s repairs guide says it is responsible for flooring repairs. Landlords must keep a property in a safe and liveable condition. However, landlords are allowed to meet this obligation through appropriate repairs rather than full replacement, unless full replacement is necessary to make the property habitable.
  2. In this case, the resident was unhappy that the landlord only offered to repair or replace the damaged subfloor tiles. While we acknowledge her concerns about safety and hygiene, the landlord acted reasonably by inspecting the flooring and offering targeted repairs. Where safety or basic functionality is at risk, such as an uneven surface, a repair would usually be enough to meet the landlord’s obligations.
  3. The resident also objected to the possible colour mismatch if only individual tiles were replaced. The landlord explained that it prioritised functionality over aesthetics and would aim to match items where possible or use the closest match available. This was a reasonable response. Landlords are not required to match the exact appearance of subfloor tiles. Using a similar colour where an identical match is unavailable is appropriate and would maintain the function and appearance of the floor.
  4. In summary, the landlord’s offer to repair the subfloor tiles was fair and appropriate. The repair would have addressed the safety issues and made the floor level and usable. It also would have allowed the resident to install her own preferred flooring on top. The landlord met its obligations by offering this solution.
  5. In her complaint to us, the resident raised concerns about the possibility of asbestos in the floor tiles. Although this issue was not part of her original complaint to the landlord, we note that an asbestos survey was completed in 2019 and found no asbestos present. Nevertheless, due to the likely damage to the tiles and the resident’s ongoing health concerns, it would be reasonable for the landlord to reassess the flooring. And a recommendation is made below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its decision not to replace all the subfloor tiling in the property.

 Recommendation

  1. The landlord should carry out an inspection of the subfloor tiles to confirm they remain safe and free from asbestos. It should also re-offer to replace or repair the affected tiles, should the resident wish.