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 (202437796)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202437796

Clarion Housing Association Limited

6 June 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 handling of repairs following a burst water pipe.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident has been an assured (shorthold) tenant of the landlord since 2020. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The resident lives with her 3 children all of whom are under 18.
  2. The resident reported a burst pipe under her kitchen sink on 12 September 2023. The landlord repaired the pipe the next day.
  3. The resident reported a leak on 18 October 2023. She said water was coming up through her kitchen floor. The landlord attended the next day. It identified the cause of the leak was the waste pipe underneath the kitchen sink. It repaired the waste pipe at some point in October 2023. It needed to complete further repairs due to the damage caused to the kitchen and flooring from the leak.
  4. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 7 May 2024. She was unhappy the landlord had not repaired her kitchen following the leak. She wanted the landlord to repair her flooring and install a new kitchen.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 1 July 2024. It accepted it failed to respond to the water leak effectively and delayed in repairing the resident’s flooring in its stage 1 response. It assured her it would replace her flooring within 28 days. It said its kitchen replacement program had been delayed but it would repair her existing kitchen. It agreed to inspect the kitchen to ensure it was safe on 11 July 2024. It awarded her £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience. It also awarded £50 for the delay in providing its response.
  6. In September 2024 the landlord identified asbestos underneath the flooring. It moved the resident to a hotel on 14 September 2024.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint on 12 November 2024. She was unhappy at the length of time it had taken for the landlord to complete the repairs. She was still living in a hotel. She also said when she returned to her home she found the contractor had left it unlocked. The contractor had also been storing items on her personal belongings. She had to continue paying the utility bills and 2 of her children had to celebrate their birthdays away from their home.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 23 December 2024. It apologised for the behaviour of its contractor and assured her it had spoken with them. It told her it had started work on the renewal of the kitchen and the flooring. It apologised that because of the asbestos issues it would not complete the repairs by 30 December 2024 as it had planned. It aimed to have the resident back in her home by 15 January 2025. It apologised that it needed to move her to another decant property on 1 January 2025. It awarded her £750 for the distress and inconvenience she had experienced from the delays. It also awarded £50 for the delay in providing its response.
  9. The resident escalated her complaint to this Service on 24 December 2024. She was unhappy with the landlord’s delays in completing repairs. She said being away from her home was having a negative impact on her and her family’s lives. She did not believe the amount of compensation the landlord had awarded reflected the distress her and her family had experienced.
  10. In May 2025 the resident told us that uncertainty about the security of her temporary accommodation was causing her distress. She said some weeks she has only found out the temporary accommodation is to be extended the day before the lease is due to expire. That was putting a strain on her and her family. She also said she has felt she has had to chase updates about the works from the landlord and its contractor.
  11. The landlord replied to a query from this Service on 27 May 2025. It confirmed the resident was still living in temporary accommodation. It aimed to have completed the outstanding repairs by 16 June 2025. After which it will move the resident back to her home.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has told this Service that her living situation has impacted her mental health. While this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or if the landlord’s actions or inaction has had a detrimental impact on the resident’s health. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impact on health and wellbeing. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. However, this Service has considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
  2. The resident has told this Service that issues with the decant have caused her and her family additional distress and inconvenience. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. The landlord did not investigate issues related to the decant in its complaint response. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required. We will however consider the impact of any failings the landlord’s handling of the repairs had on the resident such as the need to move her from her home.

Handling of repairs following burst water pipe

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out 2 main categories of repair: emergency and non-emergency. It should attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours to either make safe or complete a temporary repair. It should complete non-emergency repairs within 28 days. It does not have set timescales for major component replacement works such as the replacement of kitchens or bathrooms. The tenancy agreement states the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the structure of the property.
  2. When the resident first reported the burst pipe the landlord acted promptly to complete a repair within 24 hours. It was reasonable it scheduled the additional repairs to the damage caused by the burst pipe as non-emergency. The resident reported that there was water coming up through her flooring before the landlord had completed the outstanding repairs. Again, it acted promptly to respond and make safe within 24 hours under an emergency repair. It booked in further non-emergency repairs to repair the damage caused to the kitchen units on 3 November 2023. After further contact from the resident it agreed for its Maintenance Surveyor to inspect the damage to the flooring on 2 November 2023. The landlord’s action at that stage was appropriate and in line with its repairs policy.
  3. The landlord did not follow up on its assurance to repair the kitchen units on 3 November 2023. It was not appropriate that it did not reschedule that repair. The resident said its Maintenance Surveyor had attended that month. She told the landlord he told her the linoleum flooring needed to be replaced but it had not done anything since. She was concerned it was a trip hazard. It was not appropriate that it took the landlord over 2 months to raise a non-emergency repair to replace the flooring on 9 January 2024. There was little information provided about that appointment to this Service and there is no evidence it took place. That meant the resident continued to live with a potential trip hazard in her kitchen.
  4. It was not appropriate that over 3 months later the landlord had yet to begin the flooring repairs. It told the resident it had approved a quotation in a call on 16 April 2024, but she called back on 22 April 2024 and told it the contractor said it had not yet approved the quotation. The landlord cancelled the existing repair on 2 May 2024 and raised a new repair job. That action suggests it had not approved the original quotation. It did not show it was effectively monitoring neither the repair nor its communication with its contractor.
  5. When the resident raised her stage 1 complaint on 7 May 2024, she told the landlord she was concerned about her young daughter’s safety. She had fallen in the kitchen several times due to the uneven flooring. The landlord told her on 14 May 2024 it had approved its contractor’s quotation and would raise an order “in a few days” for it to complete the repair. Given the flooring repairs had been outstanding since November 2023 it was not appropriate that the landlord did not give certainty to the resident during that communication. It did not show it was taking her concerns about the delays or her daughter’s safety seriously.
  6. The landlord attended the resident’s home on 29 May 2024 and identified another leak behind the kitchen sink. Due to the length of time that had elapsed since the earlier leaks it is reasonable to expect this leak had not been highlighted as an on-going issue. In a call with the resident the same day she requested to be decanted (moved from her home temporarily). She was upset that she was having to prepare food for her children in the presence of several slugs every day due to the damp conditions because the floor had not dried fully. She wanted it to install a new kitchen because her existing kitchen was already due to be replaced in 2024.
  7. Internal landlord notes from 30 May 2024 show it was considering whether it could decant her. In line with its decant policy the landlord was entitled to decide on whether a decant was necessary, but its policy states it will involve and consult with residents from the outset when it makes a decant decision. There is no further records to show it decided she should remain in her home, so it is unclear if those initial considerations progressed any further. As it was the resident remained in her home until September 2024. In not documenting its position regarding the decant or showing it had discussed it with the resident the landlord has not shown it considered how the disrepair was affecting her and her family.
  8. It was appropriate the landlord apologised for the delay in completing the outstanding flooring works in its stage 1 response on 1 July 2024. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it considers compensation on a case by case basis. This Service’s remedies guidance would usually award between £100 and £600 where we have made a maladministration determination. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s compensation award of £200 did not fully recognise the length of time the resident had experienced living with the kitchen in a state of disrepair and that the issue was on-going.
  9. Given the landlord had delayed its kitchen replacement program it was reasonable it told the resident it could not install a new kitchen in its stage 1 response. It assured her it would repair any damage to the existing units if she reported the required repairs using its usual contact centre. With the length of time that had elapsed since the leaks it was not appropriate the landlord did not already understand the extent of the damage caused to the kitchen units. It agreed to inspect the kitchen to ensure it was safe but there is no evidence it completed that inspection. It would have been appropriate to have documented evidence of that visit as it would have allowed it to make an informed decision about whether it should decant her.
  10. The landlord also assured the resident in its stage 1 complaint response that it would complete the outstanding flooring repairs within 28 days. Internal landlord notes show it instructed its staff to check with its contractor it could complete the flooring work within 28 days on the day it issued its response. It was not appropriate the landlord made that assurance to the resident when there is no evidence to show the outcome of that communication with its contractor. The flooring repairs remained outstanding for over 2 months further. In not following through with the assurances it made the landlord risked the resident losing confidence in its ability to repair her home.
  11. The landlord identified that it needed to decant the resident and her family to complete the repairs to her kitchen. It decanted her to a hotel for an initial period of 7 days on 14 September 2024 with the repairs due to start 2 days later. The resident and her 2 youngest children were given 1 room and her eldest child who was 17 at the time a separate room. As it expected the repairs to be completed within around 2 weeks it was reasonable that it selected a hotel for the decant.
  12. When the landlord’s contractor attended to remove the flooring in September 2024, it identified signs of asbestos. While the increased delay caused by the landlord having to appoint an asbestos specialist contractor to complete the removal of the flooring was reasonable the delay in identifying the asbestos was not. It is worth highlighting that the landlord raised the initial flooring repairs as a non-emergency repair on 9 January 2024. Had it arranged the flooring repairs within 20 working days of that date as it should have it would have been able to identify the asbestos much sooner than it did. By the time it identified the asbestos the flooring repairs had been outstanding for almost 1 year since its November 2023 inspection.
  13. The landlord initially scheduled the asbestos removal to begin on 23 October 2023. However, again the works did not start on that date further increasing the time the resident and her family were away from their home. Given the additional delay it was appropriate the landlord offered to move the resident from a hotel to an apartment in November 2024. The resident accepted its offer and moved into an apartment around 16 November 2024.
  14. The landlord’s stage 2 response on 23 December 2024 was reasonable. It was appropriate it apologised for its contractor’s behaviour and that it spoke with the contractor to remind it how its employees should behave. It was also appropriate it increased the compensation to £750 to reflect the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident. While that figure was above the £600 mentioned in our remedies guidance for where there has been maladministration there is scope to increase the amount awarded where the circumstances of maladministration apply but the redress needed to put things right is substantial. In awarding that figure the landlord recognised that its failings had caused significant detriment to the resident and her family.
  15. In its stage 2 response it also told the resident she would need to move from her temporary accommodation by 1 January 2025 because the owner of the apartment had sold it. While the circumstances of the temporary accommodation being sold were outside the landlord’s control it added further disruption to the resident with her having to move to a third decant property. Had the landlord met the initial target date of 30 December 2024 mentioned in its response it could have prevented that disruption.
  16. The landlord’s asbestos contractor completed the asbestos removal on 3 February 2025. Following the removal of the asbestos the installation of the kitchen and flooring was not scheduled to begin until the week commencing 7 April 2024. Given it had told the resident it aimed to have her back in her home by 15 January 2024 it was not appropriate the remainder of the works were delayed by a further 2 months. Although installation of a new kitchen qualifies as major replacement works under the landlord’s repairs policy with no set timeframe to complete, the landlord did not show it had effectively planned for the installation. It appears the delay was due to the landlord waiting for the new kitchen to be delivered. Had it taken a more joined up approach it could have scheduled the delivery date of the new kitchen closer to the completion of the flooring works. As it was the resident remained in temporary accommodation for a period where the landlord was unable to progress with the repairs.
  17. It is not clear if works began in April 2025. The landlord has confirmed works are on-going as of 27 May 2025. Should it complete the works by its target date of 18 June 2024 the resident will have been in temporary accommodation for 8 months.
  18. When considering this case, it is important to acknowledge the length of time this issue has remained unresolved. This has caused significant detriment to the resident and her family. Initially in living with a kitchen in a state of disrepair then being decanted to temporary accommodation for 8 months. Although it would not be reasonable to have expected the landlord to have completed all repairs within its 20 working day timeframe its 20 month delay was not appropriate. It was reasonable that the flooring works took longer than originally expected due to the discovery of asbestos. However, the length of time the landlord took to begin the initial repairs that identified asbestos was not reasonable. While it has kept the resident updated from September 2024 onwards it has often failed followed through with the assurances it had made to her. It has told her on several occasions that she would be back in her home for a date without completing the repairs to ensure that happened.
  19. Although the repairs remain outstanding the landlord has improved its approach since its stage 2 response. It is also noted that in agreeing to fit a new kitchen it has provided the outcome the resident had originally requested. While the delays that preceded that decision were unreasonable the landlord does not have a set timeframe for how long it should take to complete major works. However, as its target date of 18 June 2025 is over 5 months later than the commitment of 15 January 2025 it made in its stage 2 response the Ombudsman considers there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs following the burst water piper. With the additional delays and its lack of urgency since is stage 2 response the landlord has not shown it learned from its previous failings. It has not shown it has fully recognised the effect being away from their home for a prolonged period has had on the resident and her family.
  20. An order has been made for a senior manager to apologise for the failings identified in this report. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the impact experienced by the resident and her family in this case warrants a further payment of compensation. When responding to our request for information the landlord also said that it expected further compensation would be required to reflect the additional delays. While the landlord made efforts to put things right in its stage 2 response it did not honour the commitments it made. In deciding on an amount the additional delays in 2025 cannot be viewed in isolation, as the cumulative impact of the repeated delays that preceded them has significantly increased the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
  21. The landlord should pay the resident an additional £600 in compensation in addition to the £950 it has already awarded at stage 1 and stage 2 to reflect the further distress and inconvenience she has experienced as a result of its delays in completing the repairs to her home. That figure is in line with the maladministration banding of our remedies guidance, and it recognises:
    1. The disruption the resident and her young family has experienced in living in temporary accommodation for 8 months.
    2. The distress and inconvenience the resident has experienced by the several failures by the landlord to meet target dates it had set.
    3. The inconvenience resulting from the resident feeling as though she has to chase updates from the landlord and its contractor.
  22. The Ombudsman considers the £100 it awarded for its delays in responding to her complaint reasonable. This compensation is to be excluded from the amounts mentioned.
  23. It is noted the repairs to the resident’s kitchen are on-going and should be completed by 18 June 2025. An order has been made for the landlord to have completed all repairs to the kitchen and flooring within 8 weeks of the date of this report to allow for any unforeseen delays that may arise. It should aim to have the resident back in her home within the same period. It should keep her updated at the earliest opportunity if it cannot meet the target date of 18 June 2025. It should also meet with her ahead of her return to her home to discuss the condition of the property on handover.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs following a burst water pipe.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Arrange for a senior manager to call the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report. It must also issue its apology in writing.
    2. Pay the resident £1,550 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by its delays in completing the repairs to her home following the burst water pipe (it can deduct any payment already made to the resident under its internal complaints procedure excluding the £100 it awarded for complaint handling delays from this figure).
  2. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Complete all the outstanding repairs to the resident’s flooring and kitchen.
    2. Complete an inspection of the resident’s home prior to her returning from temporary accommodation to ensure all repairs have been completed.
    3. Ensure that arrangements are made for the resident to return to her home.
  3. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with a review conducted by a senior manager. This should be within 12 weeks of the date of this report. The review should include (but is not limited to):
    1. An exploration of why the failings identified within this report occurred, including why it took as long as it did to complete the initial flooring repairs in September 2024.
    2. Following the review, the landlord should produce a report setting out:
      1. The findings and learning from the review.
      2. Recommendations on how it intends to prevent similar failings from occurring in the future.
  4. The landlord should provide this Service with proof of compliance with the orders within the time specified for each order.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not done so already the landlord should pay the resident the £100 compensation it awarded for its delay in providing its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses.
  2. The landlord should meet with the resident to discuss the handover of her property following the decant.
  3. The landlord should assess the reasonable costs incurred by the resident during the decant in line with its decant policy and reimburse these.
  4. The landlord should provide the resident with information about how to make a claim against its insurer for any damage to her belongings.
  5. The landlord should consider whether further compensation is appropriate if the resident is not returned to her home by 18 June 2025.