Clarion Housing Association Limited (202427114)

Decision
Case ID	202427114
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Clarion Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	21 October 2025

Background

The resident lives in a ground floor flat. The flat above him has a balcony.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about:
1. The resident’s reports of a leak in the property
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was maladministration in the handling of the leak.
2. The landlord made a reasonable offer redress in the complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of the leak.

The landlord delayed for over a year to attend to replace the window and complete the balcony work, during that time it did not evidence that it kept the resident updated and did not evidence that it had raised the works order for the replacement window.

Complaint handling.

While we consider the landlord’s complaint could have been improved, it recognised the impact on the resident and has taken proportionate steps to put things right.

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: A senior member of staff provides the apology. 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 November 2025
2	Compensation The landlord must pay the resident £2,500, made up as follows: £2,500 previously offered for its handling of the leak. 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 18 November 2025
3	Case Review The landlord must review the failings found in this investigation in relation to record keeping and consider how these failings might be avoided in future. This should include a review of current processes for recording repairs to ensure that appointments, progress, communication with the resident and completion of repairs are captured accurately and should consider if it needs to complete any staff training. The outcome of this review should be shared with the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks	No later than 18 November 2025

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
As a finding of reasonable redress has been made in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling, it should pay the compensation offered of £150 if it has not already done so.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
12 March 2024	The resident raised a formal complaint about a leak in his property that had been ongoing since 2016. The key points were as follows: Earlier works to install new windows had made no difference. The leak occurred every time it rained as the balcony above fell towards the building meaning excess water was unable to drain away. He had spent £2000 over the years having the ceiling repaired yet the landlord had never helped towards the costs. He had not claimed on his insurance as the excess was £250. The landlord had made attempts to fix the issue but never completed a proper investigation to find the source of the leak. Every time the landlord fixed the leak, it assured him it had resolved the issue, the told him to wait 2 to 3 months to redecorate, which he had done but then the issue reoccurred. The issue had caused distress and inconvenience, and he had wasted a lot of time. The surveyor assured him in October 2023 that following a temporary repair, it would replace the window and relay the balcony, yet nothing had happened.
5 April 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. The key points were as follows: Its record showed the resident had been reporting a persistent leak since 2023, following which its surveyor had recommended a solution which included installing a new window frame in the flat above the resident’s. It had measured the windows last week and raised a purchase order for the works which it was currently processing. It apologised for the inconvenience and delay in resolving the leak and said it was encouraged that it had now pinpointed the cause. With regards to the damaged items, it said it was standard practice for a resident to make a claim via their own contents insurance but gave details of its own public liability insurance. It offered £350 compensation for the delay in repairing the leak and £50 for its complaint handling.
8 April 2024	The resident requested to escalate his complaint for the following reasons: The compensation offered did not cover the number of times he had paid for a repair to the ceiling over the years. The landlord consistently told him it had resolved the issue; he redecorated and then the issue reoccurred. He had spoken to his insurance who said a successful claim was unlikely as the leak was ongoing. He had spent around £2000 on repairs and said it was perfectly reasonable for the landlord to reimburse that. For 2 out of the last 8 years he had been unable to use his bedroom.
16 May 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response and made the following key points: It had reviewed the records and confirmed an action plan was in place to replace the window units of the property above. It had organised a meeting to discuss the final points of the repair, but the windows would be ready in 10 to 12 weeks It had raised a future action to ensure the work was monitored and the resident kept in communication. It had reviewed the records and noted the resident had been reporting the leak since 2019, not 2023 as it had said in its stage 1 response. It could not reimburse the redecorating works as it did not bear responsibility for those but had increased its compensation offer to £2,150 for not resolving the leak, in addition to the £350 previously offered. It also awarded £50 for the delayed stage 2 response and £50 for the incorrect information given at stage 1. That brought the total compensation offered to £2,500 for the landlord’s handling of the leak and £150 for its complaint handling.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred his complaint to us on 17 October 2024 as the landlord had not resolved the leak and undertaken none of the promised works. We understand that the issue was fully resolved in June 2025.

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 considered

In the resident’s formal complaint, he raised that the issue had been ongoing since 2015. While we do not dispute this, we can only consider complaints which we were brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within 12 months of the issue occurring. Therefore, this investigation will only consider the landlord’s handling of the issue from August 2023 when we can see the resident reported the issue again.

Complaint	Handling of the leak
Finding	Maladministration

The resident reported a recurring leak from the upstairs property around 1 August 2023. While the landlord logged a repair, it did not provide details of any action taken, highlighting poor record-keeping, a recurring issue in this investigation. The landlord must implement robust systems to track and monitor repairs. Accurate records help maintain a clear understanding of the property’s condition, support effective repair management, and ensure residents receive reliable information.
We are aware that a surveyor attended the property in October 2023, completed make safe works and arranged to replace the windows and relay the balcony. While this was a reasonable response given the ongoing issues, the landlord has provided no details of the visit or the works completed.
It is evident that the landlord told the resident that it would complete the works to replace the windows by December 2023, yet when the resident contacted the landlord on 5 March 2024, no works had been done and the resident said he was unable to use the bedroom as the leak was “worse than ever”. The landlord’s lack of action was unacceptable. During that period the resident continued to chase the landlord for updates, all while living with a leak in his property.
Internal emails from 12 March 2024 show that it had not raised the works ordered in October 2023, nor had they been authorised. Where the landlord is aware the works need prior authorisation due to cost, it needs to ensure it does this at the earliest opportunity. That it did not do so for 6 months after it had promised the works and only when the resident raised a formal complaint is a further shortcoming.
Following the resident’s complaint the landlord appropriately arranged for its surveyor to attend to reinspect the issue. It arranged for its contractor to attend to measure for the replacement windows. It also communicated its plan to the resident on 26 March 2024.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response it said it had raised a purchase order for the replacement window. However, we cannot see that it gave details of the expected lead time for the windows until its stage 2 response. It would have been helpful for the landlord to have told the resident at the earliest opportunity that it would take up to 12 weeks for its contractor to make the windows to manage his expectations.
The resident then contacted the landlord 12 weeks later, on 4 August 2024 to chase the works. He said the landlord said it would begin week starting 3 June 2024, but he had heard nothing. Again, the landlord has not provided evidence of any communication with the resident which is further evidence of a record keeping issue. Furthermore, where a landlord is unable to keep to the date promised for work, it needs to ensure it effectively communicates that delay to the resident to manage expectations. Its failure to do so in this case was unacceptable.
The landlord’s internal records show that the works order was still awaiting approval due to a dispute over who would cover the cost. However, since the landlord informed the resident in May 2024 that it had raised the order, it is unacceptable that either it had not raised the order, or it had not updated its system to reflect the status of the works. Neither did it evidence that it kept the resident informed throughout.
On 16 May 2024, the landlord instructed its repair team to monitor the window unit replacements to ensure completion. However, the resident had to notify the landlord that the work had not been done, indicating the repairs team did not follow the works through. This lack of oversight led to a delay for the resident.
The landlord did not replace the windows until December 2024, 7 months later and over a year after the initial commitment to replace them in October 2023.
Following the replacing of the windows, the leak reoccurred, and the landlord arranged for a specialist to inspect the windows. This revealed it had not installed damp proofing during the 2017 installation of the windows, causing the issue. The landlord completed the necessary repairs in June 2025.
Throughout the complaint the resident said the ongoing leak had caused damage to his personal items and he had been unable to claim on his content’s insurance due to the ongoing nature of the issue. The landlord appropriately signposted the resident to its own public liability insurance, which was in line with its policy.
The resident also said after each repair he had undertaken his own repairs to the property at a total cost of £2,000. In its stage 2 response the landlord explained it was unable to reimburse for decorating as the resident held responsibility for those as per the lease agreement. This response was in line with the lease agreement. However, it did appropriately offer the resident a total of £2,500 for its failure to resolve the leak. It said that was to reflect the time the issue had been ongoing for.
Although the compensation offered reflects the detriment experienced by the resident and aligns with our guidance on remedies, the issue persisted beyond the stage 2 response. The landlord did not show that it took steps to resolve the matter within the promised timescales. Therefore, while we have not ordered additional compensation, as the amount offered is appropriate, the landlord’s failure to act within its stated timeframe means the compensation alone is insufficient to avoid an adverse finding in this case.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant code in this case is the 2024 edition (April 2024). Our findings are:
1. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the code in respect of timescales.
2. An internal email from 5 March 2024 shows the resident sought to make a formal complaint yet there is no evidence the landlord logged this complaint. This is outside of the Code which sets out that a resident does not need to specifically make a formal complaint for one to be logged.
3. The resident raised a further formal complaint on 12 March 2024, which the landlord has not evidenced that it acknowledged.
4. It provided its stage 1 response on 5 April 2024, 7 working days after the response was due. We cannot see that the landlord wrote to the resident to explain that there would be a delay and therefore it acted outside of its own policy and the Code.
5. The resident escalated his complaint on 8 April 2024. The landlord’s response was due on 7 May 2024, yet it did not write to the resident until 8 May 2024 to explain that the response would be late. Again, the landlord acted outside of its own policy and the Code.
6. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 16 May 2024. This was earlier than the date given in its extension request.
7. At both stages the landlord apologised for the delays and offered £50 for each delayed response. Furthermore, it identified an error with a date given in its stage 1 response and offered £50 to reflect the error.
8. Therefore, while the landlord’s complaint handling was not in line with its policy or the Code, it has made steps to put things right. As such we consider it has made an offer of reasonable redress.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s record keeping was poor in this case. It did not evidence that it kept a log of any communication between itself and the resident outside of the complaint process itself. The landlord must consider completing a self-assessment against our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.

Communication

The landlord’s communication in this case was poor. It needs to ensure that it has processes and procedures in place that enable effective and regular communication with its residents. In this case the resident spent a significant amount of time chasing the landlord for updates and the landlord did not evidence that it responded. Good communication plays a key role in an effective repairs system, and the landlord must consider how it can improve its communication with residents.