Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Estuary Housing Association Limited (202331300)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331300

Estuary Housing Association Limited

15 July 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 

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:

  1. a shattered window and damaged door.
  2. the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is the shared owner of a 2-bedroom ground floor duplex apartment with two floors. The shared ownership started in October 2020. The property was a new build. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing and is the freeholder of the resident’s building. The landlord was aware the resident lived with her child, who was newborn at the time of the complaint.
  2. The property was covered by a 1-year defects liability period from 12 October 2020. During this time, the resident reported several issues including with the external patio door and with windows dropping. The landlord contacted the developer who carried out works in accordance with the NHBC warranty.
  3. On 8 October 2023 the resident told the landlord that the interior pane of the large, double-glazed window in her living room had shattered. She said this had happened suddenly, with a large bang and that the shattered glass was a hazard. She said she was aware that some of her neighbours had also had shattered windows and asked how to proceed. She stated that she was not willing to pay for repairs if the problem was due to a defect.
  4. On 9 October 2023 the landlord met with the resident. She asked for more information as to why the window had shattered and what to do if it happened again. She reported the landlord’s insurance company had advised her it would not be treated as an insurance claim and would be a defect issue. On 11 October 2023, the landlord told the resident she was responsible for making her property safe and secure and advised her to arrange for a window repair. It stated it would do its best to get this reimbursed from the developer.
  5. On 16 October 2023 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. She said the shattered window was a hazard to her and her family. There was shattered glass in the window and around the edges. There was now only 1 pane in the double glazing, and it was very cold as a result. She said:
    1. she was unhappy with the lack of communication from the landlord and developer.
    2. no-one had taken responsibility for the issue.
    3. the issue with her patio door reported in 2021 was still unresolved.
    4. she felt mistreated by both the landlord and developer.
    5. She was unhappy that the landlord had previously paid for the repair of other windows in her property. She believed her neighbours had experienced the same issue and she was being treated differently.
    6. she wanted another party to arrange and pay for the window replacement to resolve the issue.
  6. The landlord responded on 24 October 2023. It defined the complaint and did not uphold it. It stated the developer was responsible and the reported service failure would have to be pursued via them. The resident was advised to contact the developer and the National House Building Council (NHBC) directly. The resident escalated her complaint on the same day.
  7. The landlord gave a stage 2 response on 5 December 2023. It stated that it was continuing to chase the developer for an outcome. The developers had stated they believed the glass shattering was due to an internal impact on the glass, evidence by children’s toys stored in front of window in photos provided. Therefore, the developer advised they were not prepared to address the issue under window warranty. The landlord said:
    1. it had attempted to negotiate this position, but the developers had not changed their stance.
    2. it had supported the resident to make a claim under NHBC warranty however, NHBC advised their view was that damage caused by internal impact and would not cover cost of replacement.
    3. it empathised with the resident; however, the defects were much wider spread than initially assessed. It had carried out a small number of one-off repairs. It now estimated that wider costs for the whole block could be around £100 000, and it could not pay for issues it was not responsible for.
    4. all issues reported before 12 October 2021 were defects covered by developer and those after and relating to internals of a property are responsibility of shared owners.
    5. it offered support to find contractors who may provide cheaper quotes for the window.
  8. The resident contacted this Service on 5 December 2023. She was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the case and wanted either it or the developer to replace the window. The resident continued to raise the issue with the landlord from December 2023 to June 2024. The landlord continued to make representations to the developer during the same period. On 10 June 2024 it stated that the developer would repair the doors. On 25 June 2024 the developer replaced the window.
  9. In June 2025 the resident stated she was still dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the case. She said she was distressed by the developer’s initial stance that impact to the window caused it to shatter and concerned by the defects in the block. She wanted compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the window shattering.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has expressed dissatisfaction with the developer’s and NHBCs actions and handling of her complaint. This is not within the scope of the Housing Ombudsman Service.
    1. NHBC’s complaints policy and process can be found here. https://www.nhbc.co.uk/contact/complaints The Financial Ombudsman Service can review complaints which have exhausted NHBC’s internal complaints procedure. 
    2. The developer’s complaints policy and process can be found here https://www.mearsgroup.co.uk/your-home/complaints-process. The New Homes Ombudsman Service can investigate complaints which have exhausted the developer’s internal complaints process.

The resident’s reports of a shattered window and damaged door

  1. The resident’s shared ownership agreement states that the resident is responsible for repair of glass in the windows and doors of the property.
  2. Issues reported before 12 October 2021 were the responsibility of the developer under the 1-year defects liability period. NHBC provided a 2-year builder warranty period and then an 8-year insurance policy for physical damage to the home caused by a failure to build to the NHBC requirements.
  3. The resident notified the landlord of the shattered window on 8 October 2023 via email and in person on 9 October 2023. The landlord stated it would investigate with the window manufacturer and feedback. Under the shared ownership agreement, the landlord was not responsible for the window glass. It was reasonable for the landlord to liaise with the developer and window manufacturer.
  4. On 11 October 2023 the landlord told the resident that she was responsible for making her property secure and safe. It said she should arrange for a window repair, and it would attempt to lobby the developer to pay for this. This was a reasonable approach that considered the resident’s shared ownership agreement and her individual position.
  5. In her stage 1 complaint, the resident said that she had reported issues with her patio door in 2021 and this was unresolved. The landlord did not address this in its stage 1 response and this was a shortcoming.  It did, however, raise this issue with the developer on 19 October 2023 and instruct its internal surveyor to look at the door. The landlord’s surveyor said that heat had affected the door which has bowed as result of excessive heat.
  6. The resident reported issues with the door again on 10 January 2024. The landlord shared these findings with the developer on the same day and stated its belief that this should be considered a latent defect. Under the terms of the shared ownership agreement the resident was responsible for the doors of the property. The landlord took a reasonable approach and continued to negotiate with the developer regarding this issue.
  7. Between 13 October and 5 December 2023, the landlord made at least 3 representations to the developer regarding the window. It also supported the resident to make an NHBC claim. During this time the landlord communicated with the resident at least 15 times via email. It told her that the developer was not accepting responsibility for the window and notified her that NHBC would not cover the costs. The landlord took reasonable actions, which were in line with the shared ownership agreement.
  8. The resident complained on multiple occasions that the landlord had previously replaced other shattered windows in the block. The landlord acknowledged this in its stage 2 response. It said it was unable to continue this approach due to the cost. It stated it was not responsible for the defects in the building. The landlord was not responsible for repairing the shattered window and did continue to make representations to the developer. This was within a range of reasonable responses available to it.
  9. The landlord was aware of a range of possible defects within the building that had arisen since the end of the liability period. It was proactive in its communication. For example, through coordinating monthly resident, developer and landlord on site meetings.  
  10. In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered support to find contractors who may provide a cheaper quote for the window. It also said it would continue to contact the developer about the ongoing issue of outstanding defects in the property. The landlord undertook both actions. Evidence provided showed that the landlord took a range of appropriate actions until at least 1 July 2024.
  11. The Ombudsman understands that the resident says she was frustrated, distress and inconvenience by the shattered window. The evidence provided shows that the landlord and resident understood there were defects in the property and wider block. However, the landlord was not responsible for the internal glass of her window, this was clearly laid out in the shared ownership agreement.
  12. The landlord tried to contact the developer through its legal team. It sought advice on how both it and the resident could tackle the issue with the developer and tried to act through the NHBC around the issue. We consider that it has shown that it took the matter seriously and tried to rectify the situation. Its actions around the matter were appropriate.
  13. The landlord considered the resident’s complaint and did take actions on her behalf to try to resolve the issue with the developer. Accordingly, there was no maladministration in the case.

The associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s policy defines a complaint as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf’. The policy states complaints can be made in a range of formats.
  2. The landlord’s policy says it will acknowledge a complaint at stage 1 and 2 of its process within 5 working days. The landlord’s policy states it will provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the acknowledgment and stage 2 response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
  3. The resident told the landlord she wanted to make a complaint on 16 October 2023. It told her this needed to be sent to the complaints team. This was not reasonable and added a barrier to the complaints process.
  4. The resident emailed the complaints team on the same day. This was acknowledged on 19 October 2023. This was in line with its policy timescale.
  5. The landlord gave a stage 1 response on 24 October 2023. This was in line with its policy timescale.
  6. The resident escalated on the same day. This was acknowledged on 8 November 2023. This was outside of its policy timeframe. This delayed the resident’s attempts to resolve the issue and was not reasonable. 
  7. The landlord responded on 5 December 2023. Given the delay to the acknowledgement, this was outside of the landlord’s policy timeframe. This was not reasonable and likely caused the resident distress. The landlord did not apologise for the delay and therefore failed to consider how it might put things right.
  8. The Ombudsman considers this amounted to service failure. While the failures did not impact the outcome of the substantive complaint, the resident was caused time and trouble by having to repeat her complaint to different teams within the landlord. The delay to acknowledge the complaint unreasonably delayed the resident’s final resolution.
  9. The landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for these failures, which is not in line with our dispute resolution principles of putting things right and learning from outcomes. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance the landlord must apologise for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a shattered window.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Order

  1. Within 28 days of this report the landlord should:
    1. apologise in writing for the complaint handling failures identified in this report.
    2. provide evidence of the above to this Service.