From 13 January 2026, we will 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 (202420892)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202420892

Clarion Housing Association Limited

28 August 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 flooding in his property.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property which is a 1-bedroom flat. The resident has a chronic knee condition and chronic traumatic encephalopathy.
  2. On 8 November 2023, the resident reported flooding in his home. The landlord recorded that the bath, toilet, and sink were leaking, and the resident was unable to contain it. He said it was affecting every room. The landlord noted that the resident was “disabled and struggles with mental health.”
  3. In a telephone conversation with the resident on 9 November 2023, he told the landlord that his flat kept on getting flooded. He stated it was water and sewage that was coming out of his toilet, bath, and sink. He said it had already covered the hallway and airing cupboard and was seeping into his living room. He confirmed a plumber attended the previous night but could not do anything. The resident asked for the landlord to fix the drainage issues. He said he was partially disabled and was finding it difficult to clean the property. He said it was affecting his mental health.
  4. The resident raised a formal complaint on 25 January 2024. He said his bathroom had flooded every year since 2018. He said he had made numerous attempts to get the landlord to repair the issue with no success.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 14 March 2024 and stated the following:
    1. It outlined the action it had taken since the resident’s report in November 2023. This included a CCTV survey of the stack in early January 2024 in which it found no defects or obstructions. It acknowledged that following the inspection, the resident chased a response on multiple occasions. It apologised for the lack of communication and frustration caused. It said it would feedback to its area manager about keeping residents updated.
    2. It had referred the issue to its housing team to further investigate and find a resolution to avoid waste being thrown into the communal soil pipe. It apologised for the impact on the resident and his home. It said it had arranged an appointment with him for 15 March 2024.
    3. It noted that the resident said his personal belongings were damaged and he missed time off work due to illness which he felt was caused by sewage water. It said although the resident had requested compensation for that, it could not do so, which was in line with its compensation policy. It advised the resident to contact his contents insurer to make a claim for damages to his possessions. It provided its own insurance details should the resident wish to make a claim against the landlord.
    4. It awarded £200 in compensation. £150 was for the lack of communication following the drainage survey and the inconvenience caused. £50 was for the delay in providing its stage 1 response.
  6. Following the visit on 15 March 2024, the landlord noted that after the last flood in November 2023, the resident had to clear up the raw sewage from the bathroom himself. It recorded that the flood caused damage to the carpets in the bedroom and hallway which the resident had cleaned with bleach. It said its contractor had recommended fitting non-return valves and queried whether to do so. The email said the resident was currently storing everything in his living room in case of another flood. It said it had spoken to the tenant above and their toilet was working ok. It noted the resident felt the blockages were caused by other tenants pouring fat down their sinks.
  7. The resident escalated his complaint on 8 April 2024. He said he did not accept the response or the offer of compensation. It said he wanted the landlord to provide a permanent repair to the bathroom drainage issues which he had been told was with non-return valves. He wanted the landlord to accept responsibility for all the flooding at his property since 2012. He wanted the landlord to compensate him for all damages, stress, illness, trauma, and hardship caused to him due to the floods. He said his flat had not been fit for habitation for years.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 14 June 2024. It said the primary issue was the behaviour of the flat above causing intermittent blockages to the soil stack which then caused back flow and flooding into the resident’s property. It said it inspected the pipework on 13 June 2024 and it had raised an order to fit non-return valves to the resident’s toilet, sink and bath waste. It awarded the previous £200 it offered at stage 1 and a further £100 for the delay in responding at stage 2.
  9. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. He said he wanted the landlord to compensate him for damage, illness, time off work, and stress for over an extended period. He said he would have to go to the toilet in a cooking pot for 2-3 days until the blockage cleared or until the drainage crew would attend. He said the landlord fitted the non-return valves on 12 July 2024 and he has had no issues since then. He said he was uncertain as to whether that had fixed the issue.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has referred to having experienced the issues in his complaint for many years. While he referred to flooding in his property since 2012, we have not seen evidence of the resident raising any other formal complaint prior to the one in 2024. As such, we cannot consider the historic reports as they did not exhaust the landlord’s internal complaints procedure and were not brought to the Ombudsman’s attention at the time. To clarify, this investigation will consider events from 12 months prior to the resident’s formal complaint on 25 January 2024.
  2. The resident has raised concerns that the landlord’s handling of the issues negatively affected his health and wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not have the expertise to determine any causal link between the landlord’s actions or inactions and any reported health conditions. The resident may therefore wish to seek independent advice regarding this if he has not already done so. It is however the role of the Ombudsman to assess how the landlord responded to the reports made by the resident regarding how this was affecting his health and wellbeing. This includes whether its response was reasonable and proportionate in all circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of flooding in his property

  1. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) provides guidance for landlords on how to minimise potential hazards. It refers to the risks associated with a lack of personal hygiene, sanitation, and drainage. This includes threats of infection and threats to mental health.
  2. The landlord’s records show that following the resident’s reports of flooding on 8 November 2023, its out of hours contractor attended the property as an emergency repair. The notes stated that it resolved the problem while onsite. It said a full inspection of the drainage system was required to prevent the issue from reoccurring.
  3. The resident disputed that the landlord had resolved the issue following his report. This is supported by a telephone note with the landlord on 9 November 2023 in which the resident said the plumber who attended could not do anything. He said he could not continue living like that and was finding it difficult to clean. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said the blockage was cleared during the emergency out of hours visit. It stated there was no evidence to suggest the resident did not have use of his toilet.
  4. While it was reasonable for the landlord to treat the report as an emergency and attend to make it safe, the resident contacted the landlord again the next day to state that the issue was ongoing. There is no evidence that the landlord re-attended to assess the situation and ensure it was safe and habitable for the resident. This was not in line with the landlord’s repair policy or its obligations under the HHSRS, which is a failing.
  5. The resident has provided images to show that he had to go to the toilet in cooking pots. While we are unable to substantiate the date that the resident took the images and for how long the toilet was out of use, the landlord has not provided evidence to show that it had considered whether the resident could use his toilet. The out of hour contractor’s notes stated the blockage was cleared, but there was no comment on the condition of the property and whether it was fit for habitation.
  6. Despite reports from both the resident and its contractor that sewage water had flooded the property, the landlord did not consider the need for an environmental clean or a decant. It was not appropriate to leave the resident and the property exposed to sewage waste. This likely caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident who said he was finding it difficult to clean. The landlord visited the resident on 5 March 2024 and noted that the resident had to clear up the raw sewage himself. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have acknowledged its failing and consider any learning it could take in its complaint response.
  7. On 13 November 2023, the landlord noted that the out of hours contractor had advised that a full inspection of the drainage system was required to prevent the issue reoccurring again. The landlord attended on 18 December 2023. It said it found no issues at the time of the visit but arranged for further investigation by its drainage contractor. Its drainage contractor carried out a full CCTV survey on 15 January 2024.
  8. It is positive that the landlord carried out further investigations into the cause of the flooding. However, following the advice provided on 9 November 2023, the landlord did not inspect the drains until 39 calendar days later. This was not in line with its repairs policy which says it will attend within 28 calendar days of the repair being reported. Given the circumstances and associated risks, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have attended sooner.
  9. In its stage 1 response, the landlord stated that the CCTV survey showed there were no defects or obstructions. The landlord did not acknowledge that the drainage contractor said that non-return valves were required to stop the sewage backing up into the resident’s property. At the time, the landlord said it would arrange to do that as follow on works but there is no evidence that it did.
  10. The landlord fitted the non-return valves to the bath, sink and toilet on 12 July 2024, 6 months after it was advised to do so. This was also following the resident’s request for the landlord to do so in his stage 2 escalation. The resident has not reported any further flooding in his property following the repair which is positive. Although, we consider that the landlord’s failure to arrange for the works to be carried out caused unnecessary delays in finding a permanent solution for the resident.
  11. On 15 March 2024, the landlord stated that it had spoken with the tenant directly above the resident. It said it checked their toilet and it was flushing ok. It said they denied flushing wet wipes or nappies in the toilet and it was unlikely that they would be doing so. It said the resident suggested the blockages were caused by other residents pouring fat down the sink. In it stage 2 response, the landlord stated that the primary issue was the behaviour of the flat above causing intermittent blockages to the soil stack. It said if the tenant above did not do that, then there would be no problem.
  12. The landlord’s response was not appropriate. It had already recorded that it had spoken with the flat above and that it did not believe they were causing the blockages. Therefore, its response was unhelpful and conflicting. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to outline its investigations into the causes so far. If it was unclear who was causing the blockages, it could have considered issuing letters to all potential perpetrators, outlining the impact of such behaviour, and what steps it would take if it continued. This would have shown it was being proactive and may have provided some reassurance to the resident.
  13. As part of his complaint the resident stated that his personal belongings had been damaged, he said he had to change his flooring, and he had missed time off work due to illness caused by sewage water. The Ombudsman does not dispute the resident’s account. However, the landlord appropriately explained that if he wished to make a liability and personal injury claim against it, he should contact its insurance team to do so.
  14. The landlord offered and paid a total of £300 in compensation to the resident. £150 was for its delays in responding to the complaint which was reasonable and in line with its policy. £150 was for the landlord’s failure to respond to the resident following the CCTV survey, which was a proportionate amount of compensation for that failing alone. However, the landlord failed to account for the additional failings identified in this investigation and the detriment caused to the resident as a result. As such, we do not consider that the compensation offered by the landlord was sufficient or in line with its compensation policy.
  15. Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of flooding in the property. We cannot confirm what condition the property was in following the report on 9 November 2023 and when the leak had stopped. However, the landlord failed to evidence how it considered the condition of the property following the report made and how it managed the risks presented. The delays in inspecting the drains and fitting the non-return valves likely caused distress and inconvenience to the resident in not knowing if or when the issue would happen again.
  16. To put right its failures, the landlord must pay a total of £433 compensation. This is approximately 10% of the resident’s rent from the resident’s report that the issue was not resolved on 9 November 2023 to 12 July 2024 when the non-return valves were fitted. This is because we consider it appropriate for the landlord to pay compensation which recognises the period in which the resident has been unable to fully enjoy his property.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of flooding.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. A member of the landlord staff must apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies (available on our website) and include what it has learnt from his complaint.
  2. The landlord must pay the resident a total of £433 in compensation. This must be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any arrears.
  3. The landlord must ensure it complies with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should ensure that if there are any future reports of leaks and/or flooding by the resident, it takes into account the learning from this case, and the resident’s vulnerabilities. In order to do this, it should evidence that it has completed a risk assessment and acted in line with its repairs policy and obligations under the HHSRS. These steps will help to ensure the property is safe and habitable.