Clarion Housing Association Limited (202511221)

Decision
Case ID	202511221
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Clarion Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	12 December 2025

Background

The resident lives in a basement studio flat, located within a medium-rise residential building. She bought her share of the property in March 2023. She has vulnerabilities that are known to the landlord.
Between April 2023 and January 2025, the resident reported 3 separate leaks to the landlord. These included water ingress from a defective glass brick pavement, poor communal garden drainage, and an unidentified leak in the communal corridor. The resident said the leaks were causing damp and mould in her property and the surrounding communal areas.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

We have found that the landlord:
1. Unreasonably delayed resolving the leaks in the resident’s property. At the time of our investigation, the evidence suggested that 2 of the leaks remained outstanding.
2. Did not address all aspects of the resident’s complaint and failed to make effective use of its complaints process to put things right for her.

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 19 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,515 made up as follows: £1,315 for its handling of her reports of leaks. This includes the £915 offered at stage 1, £100 at stage 2, plus an additional £300 for the failings identified in this report. £200 for its handling its handling of her complaint. This includes the £50 offered at stage 1, £50 at stage 2, plus an additional £100 for the failings identified in this report. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already made. The landlord must pay this directly to the resident and provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord must then pay the resident an additional £50 per month compensation, following the completion of the repairs. This should cover the period from 1 January 2026 until the time the repairs are completed. The landlord must confirm its commitment to do so in writing to the resident, by the due date.	No later than 19 January 2026
3	Completing the works The landlord must take all steps to ensure that the 2 outstanding leaks (the defective glass brick pavement and the leak in communal corridor) are repaired promptly, and in any event by the due date. Once the works are complete, it should arrange a post-works inspection with the resident. If the landlord cannot complete the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot complete the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will finish the works; or The steps it has taken to ensure the works were completed and provide supporting evidence. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot.	No later than 09 February 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
In December 2025, the resident told us that a repair to the external communal gate (that the landlord committed to completing within its stage 1 response) is still outstanding. We therefore recommend that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss the repair and completes any required works within its target timescales.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
5 March 2025	The resident complained to the landlord about its handling of her reports of leaks, damp and mould.
23 April 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It provided a timeline of events for 2 of the repair issues and said: It apologised to the resident for its poor handling of the repairs and acknowledged that her living conditions had been “difficult” for 2 years. It offered the resident £965 compensation. Of this, £915 was in recognition of the repair delays, lack of communication and missed appointments, and £50 was for complaint handling delays. It provided a list of the outstanding repairs and committed to ensuring they were monitored through to completion.
6 May 2025	The resident requested to escalate her complaint. She said this was because the landlord had failed to initiate any repair work to address the leaks since she first raised the complaint in March 2025.
18 June 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said: It agreed with the stage 1 investigation findings and reiterated its apology to the resident for the delays in resolving the leaks. It acknowledged that it had failed to progress the repairs since issuing the stage 1 response and apologised to the resident for its poor communication. An appointment was scheduled for 20 June 2025 for the contractor to inspect the external areas contributing to the leaks and determine the most appropriate remedial action. It offered the resident an additional £150 compensation (total £1,115). £100 was in recognition of the post stage 1 repair delays and £50 for the stage 2 complaint handling delays.
Referral to the Ombudsman	In December 2025, the resident told us that repairs to the communal garden had been completed in August 2025. However, she said repairs to the glass brick pavement and corridor leak were still outstanding. As an outcome, she wanted the landlord to complete the repairs and pay further compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

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	Leaks, damp and mould
Finding	Maladministration

The lease agreement sets out that the landlord is responsible for the maintenance of the structural parts of the building. This includes the external walls, pipes and drains. The resident is responsible for repairs inside her property, including decoration.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs within 28 calendar days. It further states that repairs to communal areas will be appointed dependent upon the nature of the work but will also be completed within 28 days.

Leak from glass brick pavement

On 19 April 2023, the resident reported a leak in the communal hallway leading to her property. She believed the leak was coming from a defective glass brick pavement located directly above. The landlord’s handling of the repair between 26 April 2023 and 15 January 2024 was poor because:
1. It failed to progress the required work within its target timescales, with frequent rescheduling of appointments.
2. Its updates were lacking, leaving the resident repeatedly chasing for progress and clarification.
3. While it attended the property on multiple occasions, it failed to fully resolve the issue.
On 19 March 2024, the resident informed the landlord that although it had attempted to fix the leak during an appointment on 15 January 2024, the issue remained outstanding, and she was told that a “whole new damp proof membrane was required”. The landlord contacted the resident on 26 March 2024 to request further information about the issues she was experiencing. Despite seeing no documentary evidence that the resident responded to the landlord, we find that it would have been appropriate for it to use its initiative by reviewing its own repair records or speaking with its contractors to establish if there were any outstanding works.
On 29 October 2024 and 28 January 2025, the resident told the landlord that the leak remained unresolved as water was “still coming into the external corridor, from the glass bricks in the path above”. Despite this, we have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident or raised the necessary repairs. This was inappropriate and caused the resident to feel ignored.
The resident raised her formal complaint on 5 March 2025 and said she had been experiencing water ingress from the glass brick path for 2 years. The landlord’s repair records are lacking during this period. However, emails between the resident and the landlord suggest that the landlord inspected the path on 17 April 2024. This was a response time of 44 calendar days and therefore exceeded the landlord’s policy timescales.
Within the landlord’s stage 1 response on 23 April 2025, it acknowledged many of the failings highlighted above and committed to “sealing the glass bricks from above and below”. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord completed this repair. The resident informed us in December 2025 that the leak had not been resolved and provided evidence that she had requested updates from the landlord on 3 occasions between 29 July 2025 and 29 October 2025. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord responded to her requests, which was inappropriate.

Communal garden drainage issue

On 19 March 2024, the resident informed the landlord via email that water was “building up in the corner of [her] flat, located next to the garden”. The landlord responded on 26 March 2024 and asked her to provide further information about the repair. As we have seen no documentary evidence that the resident responded, we cannot find that the landlord acted inappropriately at this time.
On 8 September 2024, the resident reported that water was entering her property through the external brickwork, located within the communal garden. Overall, we find the landlord’s handling of this issue was poor. This is because:
1. It scheduled an appointment for 24 September 2024, but we have seen no evidence that it took any effective action to resolve the issue.
2. Despite further contact from the resident on 27 September 2024 and 28 January 2025, the problem remained unresolved, leaving the property damp and “uninhabitable” (in the resident’s view) for an extended period.
3. Throughout March and April 2025, its communication with the resident about inspection appointments was inconsistent and contradictory.
4. The evidence suggests that during an inspection appointment on 17 April 2025, it confirmed that it would obtain quotes for excavation works, installation of a new drainage system and tree removal. It did not complete the works until 20 August 2025. This was an interval of 126 calendar days, and a total of 347 calendar days (nearly a year) from the date the resident first raised the issue. This was inappropriate as it excessively exceeded the landlord’s repair timescales.

Leak in communal corridor

On 9 September 2024, the resident reported water in the communal corridor. She said she suspected that it was originating from a neighbour’s washing machine. The landlord appropriately responded on 11 September 2024, confirming it had informed the neighbour.
Between 13 September 2024 and 16 April 2025, we have seen no evidence that the resident raised the issue again. We therefore cannot find that the landlord acted inappropriately during this period.
As mentioned earlier, the landlord’s repair records from April 2025 are lacking. However, email correspondence between the resident and the landlord shows that during an inspection appointment on 17 April 2025, the landlord said it would aim to identify the root cause of the leak in the corridor by “accessing a neighbouring flat”. Despite the landlord reconfirming its intentions within its stage 1 response on 23 April 2025, and the resident requesting an update on 4 occasions between 20 May 2025 and 29 October 2025, we have seen no evidence that it completed this repair. This further explains the resident’s feelings of being “unheard”.

Conclusion

As mentioned earlier, within the landlord’s complaint responses, it appropriately investigated and apologised to the resident for its handling of 2 of the leaks. It also offered her £1,015 compensation (not including the £100 for complaint handling) in recognition of the failings. The landlord’s compensation policy does not include a calculation matrix. Despite this, for the failings the landlord had identified, we find this was a reasonable offer for its handling of all the leaks and in line with our own remedies guidance. However, we are unable to make a finding of reasonable redress. This is because 2 of the leaks remain unresolved 6 months after the landlord issued its stage 2 response and 32 months after the resident first reported the issues.
As such, we have made a finding of maladministration. To put things right for the resident, we have ordered the landlord to pay her an additional amount of compensation. This has been calculated in accordance with our remedies guidance.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. At stage 1 it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It aims to respond within 10 working days from the acknowledgement. At stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge an escalation request within 5 working days and aims to provide its final response within 20 working days. Where these timescales are not possible, the landlord’s complaints policy states it will not exceed an additional 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. This is in line with the requirements of our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’), which became statutory in April 2024.
The resident complained to the landlord on 5 March 2025. The landlord appropriately acknowledged her complaint 4 working days later, on 11 March 2025.
On the same day, the resident requested that communication regarding her complaint be conducted via email rather than telephone. It was therefore inappropriate that the landlord attempted to contact her by phone on 2 April 2025 and failed to follow up with an email. The importance of effective communication is highlighted.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was dated 17 April 2025. However, the evidence shows that it did not issue the response until 23 April 2025. Although the impact on the resident may have been minimal, the landlord should always include the correct dates on its correspondence to complainants to evidence compliance with the timescales outlined in its complaints policy and the Code.
From the date the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint, it took 29 working days to issue its stage 1 response. This was unreasonable as it exceeded its maximum timescale of 20 working days. It was therefore appropriate that that the landlord apologised to the resident for the delay and offered her £50 compensation.
Within the landlord’s stage 1 response, it highlighted that it was committed to completing an outstanding repair to a communal gate. While not obligated to do so, in this instance it would have been appropriate for the landlord to include an “other matters” section within its complaint response or provide the resident with an update on this repair within a separate response. Its failure to provide clarity about what issues it was formally investigating caused the resident some confusion as to what matters we were subsequently able to investigate.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint on 8 May 2025. This was within 2 working days, and therefore in line with its complaints policy timescale.
On 6 June 2025, the landlord informed the resident that it required an extension to provide its stage 2 response. This was in accordance with its complaints policy. It then issued its stage 2 response on 18 June 2025. This was a total response time of 28 working days. Despite not exceeding its maximum stage 2 timescale (40 days), we find that the landlord acted fairly when it offered the resident an additional £50 compensation for the complaint handling delays.
During both stages of the landlord’s complaints process, the resident provided its complaint handlers with a detailed chronology of its handling of 3 separate leaks. Despite this, the landlord failed to provide a response and/or outcome to her concerns about the leak in the communal corridor. This was at odds with the landlord’s complaints policy which states that where it does not accept a complaint, it will always explain its reasoning to the customer.
An effective complaint resolution requires a process designed to put things right. We find that the landlord’s lack of action and ownership to undertake the outstanding repairs promised were unreasonable. It would have been appropriate for it to monitor the agreed actions through to resolution, with regular updates to the resident.
On 28 January 2025, the resident informed the landlord that she had disposed of her bed and carpet because the leaks had caused “too much mould”. The landlord’s compensation policy states that where a service failure has happened, and a resident has experienced damage to their possessions, it will award compensation. The landlord wrote to the resident on 29 October 2025 to advise her how to make a claim against its own insurers. While this was appropriate, the landlord’s failure to offer this information sooner, or within its formal complaint responses, was unreasonable and at odds with our dispute resolution principles.
In summary, while we find the landlord’s offer of £100 compensation solely for the complaint handling delays reasonable, it does not account for the additional failings identified in this report. We have therefore made a finding of maladministration. To put things right for the resident, we have ordered the landlord to pay her an additional amount of compensation. This has been calculated in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s repair records were generally poor. Where information was provided, it lacked specific or relevant detail. Also, several pieces of key information were provided to us by the resident, rather than the landlord. The landlord should endeavour to keep contemporaneous records of all correspondence it has with residents.

Communication

The landlord’s communication with the resident throughout the repair journey was consistently poor. Good communication plays a key role in an effective repairs system, and the landlord should consider how it can improve its communication with residents.