Estuary Housing Association Limited (202303487)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303487

Estuary Housing Association Limited

31 May 2024

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 response to the resident’s request for his door to be replaced.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. He occupies a 3 bedroom house with his family.
4. An external contractor manages the landlord’s repairs service. For the purposes of this report, this Service will refer to both the landlord and the repairs contractor as ‘the landlord.’ This is because it is the landlord that has repair obligations towards its residents. While it can subcontract this service, it must meet its target response times and provide a service in line with its policies, procedures, and good practice.
5. On 14 July 2022, the resident reported that his back door would not close without him locking it. The landlord made an appointment for 5 August 2022.
6. The landlord’s operative attended on 5 August 2022. They said that the door had become warped and they could not repair it. They said that the landlord would need to replace the door. The landlord raised and approved this order on  6 September 2022
7. Between 6 September 2022 and the 21 November 2022, the landlord chased the contractor and supplier for an update. The resident followed this up with the landlord, however the landlord was unable to give him a date of when it would fit his door.
8. On 6 December 2022, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord about the delays to it replacing his door.
9. The landlord’s internal correspondence shows that when it began to investigate the resident’s complaint, it became aware that there had been an error and the door had not yet been ordered.
10. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 13 December 2022. It said that it hoped to respond by 4 January 2023. However, on 23 December 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident and said that it needed longer to complete its response. It gave a new deadline for response of 18 January 2023.
11. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint request on 27 January 2023. It said that the suppliers for the door were no longer trading. It said that it should have contacted the resident to let him know this, unfortunately due to an IT problem, this did not happen. It confirmed that it would install the new door during the week of 17 February 2023. It offered £40 to the resident in compensation for the delays. It also apologised for responding to the complaint outside of its target response timescales and offered a £10 voucher in compensation.
12. Due to a failure in communication between the landlord and contractors, the landlord did not order the door. As a result, it did not replace the door by the agreed deadline of 17 February 2023. The resident was unhappy with the delay. On 20 February 2023 he asked that the landlord escalate his complaint. The landlord acknowledged his request on 23 February 2023 and said that he would receive a response by 23 March 2023.
13. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 29 March 2023. It upheld the resident’s complaint and offered its apologies for the stress and inconvenience caused to him by the delays in replacing his door. It said that this was due to staff shortages but that it had recruited more staff and it hoped that this would improve its service delivery. It told the resident that it would leave the complaint open until it had completed the repairs. It offered the resident a £10 voucher for responding outside of its target response timescales.
14. On 13 April 2023, the resident informed the landlord that he did not want it to leave his complaint open and that its complaints policy did not allow for this. He asked for a written response within 5 days. The landlord has not provided this Service with a copy of its response.
15. The resident referred his complaint to this Service for investigation on 27 April 2023.

Post complaint

16. Between April and August 2023, the landlord chased its suppliers for an update as to when the door would be ready. In August 2023, the suppliers told the landlord that it had lost the door measurements.
17. The landlord arranged with the resident to remeasure the door on 7 September 2023. It approved the job in October 2023, and it ordered the replacement door in November 2023. The landlord fitted the replacement door on 7 December 2023.

Assessment and findings

18. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles required landlords to:
    1. Be fair.
    2. Put things right.
    3. Learn from outcomes.

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is proportionate for any maladministration or service failure found.

Replacement of the door

19. Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord must keep in repair and proper working order the structure and exterior of the property, and this would include doors and windows. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it must complete routine repairs within 20 working days. Where a repair is not possible, a landlord must replace the item. When this happens, it is common for works to extend beyond the landlord’s target response times. This is because the landlord may have to order replacement items and the process may involve several contractors and suppliers.
20. It could therefore have been anticipated that it would take more than 20 working days to replace the doors. However, the landlord took 14 months to replace the door, which was unreasonable.
21. One of the reasons for the delay, appears to have been the poor communication between the landlord, its contractors, and suppliers. There were mixed messages, through the resident, about who was arranging to replace the door. The landlord did not clarify who was to complete the work, until it was too late to meet the deadline it had given the resident. A landlord should put in place good internal communication procedures to provide a responsive and effective service to its residents. This will ensure that matters are followed up and outcomes recorded with other departments and contractors. In setting a deadline to complete the work, which it then did not meet, the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations. 
22. The landlord’s record keeping was also inadequate. It did not keep a record of the door measurements it had taken in 2022. It did not record the outcome of its inspection correctly. Its records show that it had decided in October 2022 that the door was beyond repair. However, it also enquired in both March and October 2023, whether it could instead just repair the lock. This led to further unnecessary delays in it replacing the door.
23. This Service’s spotlight report on repairs says that “it is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail.” Overall, the landlord’s management of the work was poor, and this meant that the work was unnecessarily protracted. It did not undertake regular reviews of the works, which led to a period of months when there was no progress at all.
24. The landlord’s communication with the resident also fell short of the standard the Ombudsman would expect. The landlord has not provided evidence to show that it kept the resident adequately updated. The resident had spent time and effort in chasing for information about the repair, and for the repair to be progressed to completion. This was unsatisfactory. The landlord should ensure that it keeps the resident informed of the progress of repairs to manage his expectations. If it expects delays, it should give the resident notice of this and provide an updated timetable for the works. When it did give the resident a timescale for works, it was unrealistic and so not met, which would have added to his frustration and dissatisfaction.
25. There is no evidence that the landlord prioritised finding a solution for the resident. Even when he had completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, the landlord did not replace the door for a further 9 months. There was also a month between the landlord approving the order and ordering it. It would have been good practice for the landlord to have fast-tracked this process, to show its commitment to resolving the resident’s complaint.
26. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the replacement of the door was inadequate. It showed a lack of oversight in relation to the works. The unnecessary and lengthy delays combined with its poor communication, compounded the impact on the resident. The Ombudsman therefore makes a finding of maladministration in relation to this aspect of the complaint.
27. The Ombudsman considers that the redress of £40 offered by the landlord was inadequate and did not reflect the detriment to the resident and his young family, caused by the delays.
28. The Ombudsman’s remedies guide says that the financial redress for maladministration where there has been a significant impact on the resident is between £600 and £1000. The Ombudsman therefore orders the landlord to pay the resident an amount of £600 in compensation:
    1. £250 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience because of the landlord’s service failure
    2. £350 in recognition of resident’s time and trouble in raising and chasing up the repairs.
    3. This replaces the landlord’s offer of £40.

Complaint handling

29. While the landlord was outside of its target response timescales in both its stage 1 and 2 responses, it recognised this and offered the resident a £10 voucher for the delays, which was reasonable.
30. However, the landlord did not follow its policy when it said in its stage 2 complaint response that it would keep the complaint open until it replaced the door. The landlord’s complaints policy does not allow for it to keep a complaint open indefinitely. While it may be reasonable for a landlord to offer compensation at stage 2 and, where repairs are pending, tell the resident that it would review this once it completed the works, the landlord did not do this. Further, when the resident asked the landlord not to keep his complaint open and to provide a final response within 5 days, there has been no record provided to this Service to show that it did so.
31. This Service therefore finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord not responding to his correspondence and not following its policy, the Ombudsman orders that it pay the resident an amount in compensation of £100. This replaces the landlord’s compensation of £20.

Determination

32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for his door to be replaced.
33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

34. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is to:
    1. Arrange for a senior officer to send a letter of apology to the resident for the service failures outlined in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £700 as follows:
       1. £600 for the resident’s distress, inconvenience, time, and effort because of the landlord’s service failures in replacing his door.
       2. £100 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience because of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
    3. This award replaces the landlord’s compensation of £60. If the landlord already paid this amount to the resident, it should deduct this from the compensation ordered by the Ombudsman and pay the balance to the resident.
35. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to undertake a self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s Knowledge and Information Management spotlight report and provide this Service with a copy of the review.