Clarion Housing Association Limited (202442644)

Decision
Case ID	202442644
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Clarion Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	21 January 2026

Background

The property is a ground floor flat. The resident began reporting recurring drainage issues in September 2022. The landlord investigated the resident’s reports, cleared blockages, and carried out various repairs. Recurring drainage issues led the resident to raise formal complaints, as she felt the measures taken by the landlord were ineffective in resolving the underlying cause of the drainage problems.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of drainage issues and its handling of associated repairs.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of drainage issues and its handling of associated repairs.
There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of drainage issues and its handling of associated repairs

The landlord was responsible for maintaining the drainage system and generally complied with its repairs policy, responding promptly to emergencies and completing most works within expected timescales. However, it failed to fully address the detriment to the resident from recurring issues with the drainage. We were unable to verify the landlord implemented all of the actions it referenced in its complaint resolutions. The resident has experienced ongoing distress and inconvenience since exhaustion of the landlord’s internal complaint process, which could have been avoided had the landlord adopted a more proactive approach to resolution.

The landlord’s complaint handling

There were minor delays in the landlord issuing acknowledgements at both complaint stages, although it is unlikely that this significantly disadvantaged the resident. The landlord issued the stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses within expected timescales of its complaint acknowledgements. The landlord made a reasonable offer of redress for delays that arose in its complaint handling at stage 1.

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 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £300 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings we identified in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of drainage issues and its handling of associated repairs. 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 February 2026
3	General order The landlord must: Inspect the drainage system serving the property and the immediate area to ensure there are no new blockages or defects. Confirm whether previous commitments (such as issuing letters to residents about correct waste disposal and periodic monitoring) were implemented. If not, ensure these are implemented without further delay. Consider sending periodic reminders to residents about waste disposal. Commit to a period of monitoring for the drainage system serving the property and the wider estate. Evaluate whether the estate drainage needs to be put on a regular maintenance programme (if the landlord has not already done so) and / or consider the merits of increasing the frequency of maintenance visits. Commit to contacting the resident periodically over the next 6 months to provide updates and reassurance. Write the resident and to us, confirming the outcome of the above, with timescales for action.	No later than 18 February 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should consider paying the £50 compensation it previously offered the resident during its own complaint investigation (if it has not already done so), for the delays it identified in its complaint handling.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
March 2023	The resident raised an initial stage 1 complaint to the landlord about issues with the drainage in March 2023, which completed the landlord’s internal complaints process in November 2023. The landlord: Apologised for delays in resolving issues with the drainage. Admitted that the drainage system was old and had not been maintained for a long time, which had resulted in issues with the foul and surface lines. Said it had carried out a CCTV survey and was waiting for its contractor to provide an outcome.
23 January 2025	The resident asked the landlord to raise another stage 1 complaint about unresolved drainage issues.
30 January 2025.	The landlord contacted the resident on 30 January 2025 to clarify her reasons for the complaint. The resident: Said there had been recurring drainage issues since the start of the tenancy, she had experienced two flooding incidents due to water backing up through the sink and washing machine, and expressed concern about future occurrences. Acknowledged that it had attended several times to unblock drains and had carried out some repairs. However, she was dissatisfied with the measures it had taken to resolve the issues and suggested it needed to find long-term solution. Mentioned she had sent multiple emails to the landlord in relation to this issue.
14 February 2025	The landlord issued the stage 1 complaint response. It: Apologised for delays in its complaint handling, for which it offered £50 compensation. Outlined the action it had taken between March 2024 and November 2024 to address the resident’s reports about drainage issues, which it attributed to a build-up of fat and grease. Clarified that no further works had been recommended by its contractor, beyond routine maintenance and proper waste disposal. Committed to monitoring the situation and sending a letter to all residents, about how to correctly dispose of their waste.
14 February 2025	The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2, expressing dissatisfaction with the complaint outcome. The resident said an employee of the landlord had informed her, the only way to fully resolve the matter, was to replace the estate’s aging drainage system.
20 March 2025	The landlord issued the stage 2 complaint response. The landlord: Outlined the steps it had taken between January 2024 and November 2025 to investigate and address the resident’s reports about drainage issues. Stated that its contractor had found no evidence of an estate-wide drainage problem. Acknowledged there had been isolated blockages caused by inappropriate waste disposal, which it had addressed within expected timescales. Clarified that it would not be replacing the drainage system based on historical repairs records and its contractor’s findings. Offered £15 for a missed appointment in March 2025 and committed again, to reminding residents about the correct arrangements for waste disposal.
March 2025	The resident asked us to investigate the complaint in March 2025. The resident said the landlord’s stage 2 response did not offer a long-term solution to drainage issues.
November 2025	The landlord told us that the drainage repairs had been resolved. However, there was a recurring issue with an air raid bunker and a network of tunnels under the estate that was prone to flooding during heavy rainfall. It said it would ensure this was drained when required.
6 January 2026	The resident told us there had been some improvement with the drains since the landlord last attended in October 2025. But said the issue had not been fully resolved. She said the landlord needed to stop blaming residents for blocking the drains and find a long-term resolution.

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	The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of drainage issues and its handling of associated repairs
Finding	Maladministration

We acknowledge that drainage issues have been recurring issue since 2022 and that the resident raised a previous complaint in 2023. However, this investigation reasonably focuses on the landlord’s actions between January 2024 and March 2025, which aligns with the timeframe considered by the landlord during its more recent complaint investigation. Events after March 2025 are referenced where relevant to the resolution of this complaint.
It is not disputed that the landlord was responsible for maintaining the drainage system serving the property and the wider estate. The landlord handled 5 drainage related reports between January 2024 and March 2025 as follows:
1. January 2024:
  1. The landlord acted appropriately upon receiving a contractor report of a failed drain “liner” by instructing replacement of the damaged sections. This job was completed by mid-March 2024, within the 90-day timeframe for complex repairs under the landlord’s repairs policy.
2. July 2024:
  1. The resident reported water backing up though the dishwasher and flooding the kitchen. The landlord appropriately arranged for the blockage to be cleared within 24 hours, meeting its emergency repair obligations and mitigating any immediate risk. Its contractor recommended the landlord fit a non-return valve to prevent future reoccurrence. It was 2 months before the landlord raised a works order for this, which was inappropriate.
3. November 2024:
  1. The landlord acted appropriately by raising a routine works order, to investigate reports about foam emerging from an external drain and gargling noises from internal fixtures. The landlord’s contractor promptly inspected, identifying a build-up of grease, caused by inappropriate disposal of waste. The landlord arranged for the drains to be cleared the next day, demonstrating appropriate and timely escalation.
4. January 2025:
  1. The landlord arranged emergency attendance following reports of an overflowing external drain, which was completed the next day, in line with the landlord’s repairs policy. The landlord’s contractor removed a blockage, checked the internal and external drainage lines, which were found to free flowing. And confirmed that no further works required.
5. March 2025:
  1. The resident reported further drainage issues, although the exact date is unclear. The landlord made an appointment for its contractor to address this on 7 March 2025, which was later changed to 10 March 2025 without notifying the resident. This communication failure caused avoidable inconvenience to the resident. The landlord did, however, put things right during its own complaint investigation by offering £15 compensation (for a missed appointment), which was in line with its compensation policy. Upon inspection, its contractor identified another blockage caused by inappropriate waste disposal, which it promptly cleared. Again, no additional works were reported.
The landlord apologised in the stage 1 complaint response for the inconvenience caused to the resident by recurring issues with the drainage, which was positive. It made a commitment to write to all residents concerning proper waste disposal and set up an internal task to monitor the situation. This was a reasonable course of action in the circumstances of the case. However, we cannot conclude that these actions were implemented, based on the available evidence.
The resident reasonably sought a long-term solution to the recurring drainage issues at stage 2, as opposed to relying on reactive repairs. She suggested the landlord should consider the merits of upgrading the estate drainage system given its age.
The landlord demonstrated it was treating the resident’s suggestion with the attention it deserved, by reviewing its historical repairs records and previous findings from its specialist drainage contractor. From this the landlord concluded there was no estate-wide defect requiring a system upgrade. The landlord was not obliged to replace the drainage system if its findings did not support that this was necessary.
The landlord committed again, in the stage 2 complaint response, to writing to all residents about proper waste disposal, with the hope this would resolve the problem. It sent internal instructions for a letter to be issued. But again, the landlord has not provided clear evidence showing this was actioned.
The landlord might also have considered the merits of increasing the number of maintenance visits, until such time as the landlord was satisfied that its residents were complying with its advice concerning waste disposal. There is no evidence the landlord considered this, which was a missed opportunity to prevent blockages and offer reassurance.
The landlord did not fully recognise the impact of the recurring drainage issues on the resident during its internal complaint process, including the continued time and effort required to report problems, repeated repairs appointments, and the ongoing worry of potential flooding.

Events after the landlord’s internal complaint process was exhausted

The resident continued to experience problems with drainage between April 2025 and October 2025. During this period the landlord arranged drain clearances, commissioned CCTV surveys, and in October 2025 it made some alterations to the resident’s waste pipe. However, no defects were identified with the drains and blockages were again attributed to inappropriate waste disposal. Our investigation found that the resident expended significant time and trouble over this period chasing the landlord for resolution.
The landlord told us in November 2025 that the drainage issues had been resolved. It referenced a separate issue involving an air raid shelter and a network of tunnels beneath the estate, which were prone to flooding, which it committed to drain when required. The relevance of this to the prior drainage problems is unclear, but it is positive the landlord has a plan to address this.
The resident told us 7 January 2026 that the drainage problems had improved since October 2025. However, she mentioned water was still occasionally backing up in the drain outside her front door and she has continued to worry about potential flooding. The resident has not reported this to the landlord, so cannot be considered a service failure. However, it would be prudent for the landlord to arrange a further inspection to ensure there have been no new blockages. And commit to a period of proactive monitoring to provide reassurance.

In summary

The landlord responded promptly to emergency situations, and carried out appropriate investigations. Repairs were completed repairs within policy timescales in most cases between January 2024 and March 2025. The landlord reasonably concluded that an estate wide drainage upgrade was not required based on the available evidence. It also sought to put maters right for the resident by compensating for a missed appointment and making a commitment of action.
However, the landlord did not fully address the detriment to the resident, arising from recurring issues with the drainage. It did not provide clear evidence that it had implemented all of the actions its referenced in its complaint resolutions. The resident continued to experience distress and inconvenience following the landlord’s complaint process being exhausted. The landlord could have adopted a more proactive approach to secure a lasting resolution. As a result, we have issued a failure finding and orders.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	Reasonable redress

The Code sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition. The landlord had a published complaints policy, which complied with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales for logging, acknowledging, and responding to stage 1 and stage 2 complaints.
This means stage 1 complaints must be acknowledged within 5 working days of the complaint being made and responded to within 10 working days of its acknowledgement. Stage 2 complaints must be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 20 working days of its acknowledgement.
The resident raised the stage 1 complaint on 23 January 2025. The landlord logged the complaint within the required timeframe. But it did not issue the stage 1 complaint acknowledgement until 31 January 2025, which was one working day late. The landlord issued the stage 1 complaint response on 14 February 2025, which was within the expected response timescale.
The delay in acknowledgement at stage 1 was a minor failing. The landlord did apologise for delays in its handling of the stage 1 complaint, during its own complaint investigation. An apology alone would have been sufficient given the duration of the delay, however, we note the landlord also offered £50 compensation.
The resident requested the landlord escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 14 February 2025. The landlord logged the complaint the following working day. Our investigation found a slight delay (2 working delays) in the landlord issuing the stage 2 complaint acknowledgement, caused by difficulties contacting the resident to clarify her reasons for the complaint. However, this was unlikely to have caused significant detriment to the resident. The landlord issued the stage 2 complaint response on 20 March 2025, within the expected response timescale.
Overall, there were minor delays in the landlord issuing stage 1 and stage 2 complaint acknowledgements. But it did issue the formal complaint responses within expected timescales of both complaint acknowledgements. The landlord apologised for complaint handling delays at stage 1 complaint, which was reasonable given there was no mitigation for this. And made an offer of compensation. As a result, we have made a finding of reasonable redress.

Learning

The landlord did not specify that it had identified any learning from this case. We have identified the following areas of learning, for the landlord’s consideration:
1. Landlords should recognise that repeated reports of the same problem indicate a need for proactive measures, even where systemic defects are not identified. Periodic monitoring, resident education campaigns, and preventative maintenance programmes may reduce recurrence and reassure residents.
2. When contractors recommend additional works to prevent recurrence, landlords should raise these orders promptly. Delays undermine the effectiveness of emergency responses and increase the risk of further inconvenience.
3. Missed or rescheduled appointments without notifying residents cause avoidable frustration and erode trust. Clear communication protocols should be in place to ensure residents are informed of any changes.
4. Where landlords commit to actions, such as issuing guidance letter to residents and proactive monitoring, they should ensure delivery and retain records to demonstrate compliance to evidence their actions. Failure to evidence commitments can lead to findings of service failure.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

We were able to determine the case based on the evidence provided by the parties. But there were some gaps in the evidence provided by the landlord, as referenced earlier in this report. Landlords should keep a robust record of their actions relating to each casefile, which can be provided to us upon request. Landlords who fail to record information accurately, risk missing opportunities to identify that their actions were inadequate or wrong and contribute to inadequate communication and redress.

Communication

The landlord was not always proactive in keeping the resident informed and the resident sometimes had to chase the landlord for confirmation of appointment dates.