Eastlight Community Homes Limited (202313995)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313995

Eastlight Community Homes Limited

4 March 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 a leak in the resident’s property and the associated repairs.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord since 27 May 2019. The property is a 3 bedroom terraced house. The resident lives in the property with her family that includes 2 children with special educational needs.
The resident reported a leak from her children’s bedroom ceiling on 23 December 2022. A contractor attended and said the issue seemed to be due to the vents in the property and said a roofer would need to attend to inspect the guttering on the property.
On 31 December 2022, the resident reported that the ceiling had collapsed. The resident called the landlord’s out of hours line who said no one could attend to make it safe and she should not go into the bedroom. The on-call operative did attend later the same day and removed some of the ceiling to prevent further damage.
The landlord completed an asbestos test on 1 January 2023 and contractors attended on 3 January 2023 to undertake a repair. That contractor attended without the necessary equipment and so attended to complete the works on 4 January 2023.
The landlord removed and repaired the bedroom ceiling 14 January 2023. The landlord also agreed, following inspection, to replace the bathroom ceiling. Which it did on 3 February 2023.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 27 January 2023. The landlord has not provided a copy of the formal complaint, however the evidence provided shows the key issues were as follows:
1. Workers arrived to paint the bedroom ceiling but could not as the resident had not moved the furniture. The resident had been told by the landlord she did not need to move any furniture.
2. The resident was unhappy as she had to throw away items damaged by the ceiling collapse and the asbestos.
3. She was unhappy at the overall distress caused.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 3 February 2023 who confirmed the outstanding concerns related to:
1. The same plumber attending the leak on 31 December 2023 despite that contractor saying the leak was not a plumbing issue when the leak first occurred on 23 December 2023.
2. She was unhappy that the landlord said there was no operative available on 31 December 2023 but had later been told the on call operative was not informed of her emergency.
3. The overall disorganisation of the contractors.
4. The resident also added an issue with work done to her windows.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 21 February 2023. It gave a brief overview of the complaint. The key points were as follows:
1. The landlord confirmed the same person attended the resident’s property on both the 23 and 31 December 2023 as that person was the on-call manager. It confirmed due to the nature of its out of hours service, it did not have emergency bricklayers available until it reopened on 3 January 2023.
2. It apologised that when the correct contractor did attend, it attended without the correct equipment. The landlord confirmed this was due to a miscommunication following many emergencies over the Christmas period. The landlord confirmed that the contractor had returned later that same day, and the repairs completed the following day.
3. It confirmed it completed all other works by 10 February 2023.
4. The landlord apologised that the situation had been stressful for the resident and acknowledged that it was unfortunate that the emergency occurred during the Christmas period when its repair staff was not readily available. It confirmed that it had scheduled the repairs for as soon as possible after the Christmas break.
5. It apologised for any confusion caused over the asbestos testing and explained the reason for this was due to some confusion over the readings completed on 1 January 2023.
6. It confirmed it would replace the items thrown away to the value of £400.
7. With regards to the window repairs, it confirmed it could take 6 weeks before the resident could expect to see a difference.
8. It offered the resident £100 compensation for the inconvenience.
The resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process on 9 May 2023. She provided an extensive timeline of events. The resident explained that both her daughters had special educational needs and discussed the specific impact the ceiling collapsing had on them.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 16 June 2023. The key points were as follows:
1. It accepted it had failed to communicate effectively around the repairs needed in the resident’s home which included, but was not limited to, the process for addressing repairs reported out of hours and the length of time it would take to complete all required works and a failure to keep the resident informed of who would be attending and when.
2. It confirmed the resident’s acceptance of any compensation did not affect her ability to make a personal injury claim in the future. It provided information from the health and safety regulator which recommended that the resident consult her GP in relation to any potential asbestos exposure.
3. The landlord confirmed it would offer £152, as requested, towards the decorating but confirmed it would therefore no longer decorate the bathroom ceiling.
4. In addition to the £400 previously offered to the resident for lost items, it also offered a £250 amazon voucher for the children to apologise for their personal experience and increased the value of the compensation offered for the inconvenience to £250. This bought the total of the compensation offered to £1,052.
In referring to this Service, the resident said at the time she did not receive the compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

In the resident’s complaint she raised the impact the leak had on her and her families mental and physical health. While the Ombudsman does not dispute this, we are unable to find a causal link between the leak and the impact on the mental and physical health. Any finding in relation to this is more appropriate for a Court. The resident may wish to seek legal advice in relation to this.

Policies and procedures.

The landlord’s repair policy states that it would respond to repairs within the following timescales:
1. Emergency repairs within 24 hours. This includes repairs where there is a serious risk to health and safety.
2. Urgent repairs within 7 days. These includes incidents which require prompt attention but do not pose an immediate risk to a resident.
3. Routine repairs within 28 days. These include repairs that do not adversely affect the use of your home.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak and the associated repairs.

The resident reported a leak in one of her bedrooms on 23 December 2023. The landlord attended, in line with its policy, on the same date to conduct an inspection.
The attending plumber found that the issue was related to the roof rather than an active pipe leak. Consequently, a roofer was requested to inspect the vents. At the time, the contractor did not consider the repair to be urgent, making it reasonable for the landlord not to arrange an immediate roof inspection. The landlord is entitled to rely on the opinions of qualified contractors, and there is no evidence in the repair log from 23 December 2022, indicating that an urgent appointment was necessary at that stage. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to raise the repair as routine at that stage.
However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord made the resident aware of the Christmas break or the length of time it would take before a repair would be undertaken. Landlord’s need to ensure they have effective communication with residents to manage expectations.
Internal evidence suggests that melting snow worsened the leak, causing the bedroom ceiling to collapse on January 31, 2022. The resident called the landlord’s out-of-hours line and was informed that no one could attend and that she should shut the door and avoid entering the room. This response was unacceptable, especially since the landlord did have an on-call operative available who attended later that day. While the advice given was reasonable under the circumstances, the lack of knowledge about the on-call operative would have frustrated the resident and showed a lack of empathy towards her and her family during an emergency.
The contractor attended and made the area safe and informed the resident that it would schedule a repair when the office reopened on 3 January 2023. In emergency situations, the Ombudsman expects landlords to ensure safety, which it did in this case. Although it was unfortunate that the attending contractor was a plumber and not a roofer, the contractor made the property safe, and the landlord scheduled the necessary repairs according to the landlord’s policy.
As part of the complaint, the resident raised dissatisfaction that it was the same plumber who attended on both occasions she reported the issue. The landlord explained this was due to its out of hours policy and with it being the Christmas shut-down period. The contractor who attended was qualified to make the area safe, as per the landlord’s repairs policy, which would have likely occurred regardless of the time of year the situation occurred. It was therefore reasonable in the circumstances that it sent the same member of staff on each occasion.
The landlord attended on 1 January 2023 to complete an asbestos test in the affected room. This was the day after the ceiling had collapsed and demonstrated the landlord’s commitment to resolve the issue swiftly for the resident.
However, the resident contacted the landlord on 3 January 2023 to enquire as to the results of the test. The following day, the resident was contacted by a contractor who wanted to do a further asbestos test. Firstly, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have informed the resident at the earliest opportunity of the results of the asbestos test to ease any concerns especially given she and her family were living in the property.
Furthermore, the contact by a different contractor to undertake further testing indicated a lack of effective communication between the landlord and its contractors. However, the landlord accepted this failing in its complaint response and apologised to the resident for the concern caused. It also confirmed it had spoken to the relevant team about the importance of keeping residents informed.
The correctly qualified tradesperson attended the resident’s property on 3 January 2023. However, when they arrived, they did not have the correct equipment with them to complete the repair. This was unacceptable and caused further frustration for the resident.
However, the landlord was able to attend later that same date with the correct equipment to inspect and identify the necessary repair. While it was unfortunate the landlord did not attend on the first occasion correctly equipped, the delay in this failing was minimal and then landlord sought to rectify the issue swifty. Furthermore, in its complaint response it accepted that its service on that occasion was not what it aimed to provide, and it had raised the concerns with the relevant manager to ensure the mix-up did not occur again.
The landlord attended to remove the items affected by the asbestos on 7 January 2023 under controlled conditions. Given the presence of asbestos in the room, the landlord acted swifty to attend and remove the items. This was within 7 days as per the landlord’s emergency repair timescales and therefore reasonable in the circumstances.
It then attended to remove and renew the bedroom ceiling on 9 and 14 January 2023. This was within 28 days, as per the landlord’s routine repair timescales and therefore appropriate.
Due to the ceiling collapse, the landlord also commissioned a survey of the other ceilings in the property. This was raised on 6 January 2023 and found that the bathroom ceiling should also be renewed. The inspection took place on 31 January 2023 and the works completed on 10 February 2023. Again, this was within the landlord’s published repair timescales and its swiftness to complete the works showed a commitment by the landlord to resolve the situation for the resident.
On 24 January 2023, the decorator attended the property to paint the bedroom ceiling. However, the work could not go ahead because the resident had been incorrectly informed that she did not need to remove items from the room. The landlord has not provided evidence to confirm whether it had agreed with the resident not to remove items, indicating a record-keeping issue. When it makes agreements, the landlord must ensure it communicates these to its contractors. Failing to do so caused a delay in completing the decorating for the resident.
Due to the ceiling collapse, the resident had to discard many items because of asbestos contamination. The landlord appropriately agreed to reimburse the resident for the cost of the lost items. The landlord asked the resident to provide evidence of the lost items, and it agreed an amount with her to cover the cost of replacement. This response from the landlord was appropriate given the circumstances.
It is clear from the evidence provided that at times the landlord did not inform the resident of appointment times or contractors attended the property to complete jobs that were not yet ready to be completed. While the landlord undertook the repairs swiftly, its communication with the resident was lacking and caused confusion and frustration for the resident at a time that was distressing. Landlord’s need to ensure they have effective communication with both contractors and residents to ensure all are aware of the progress and status of repairs and to ensure repairs are scheduled correctly and at a time convenient for the resident.
However, the landlord accepted that its service had fallen below the standard it expected to deliver and that it had failed to communicate effectively with the resident during the period of the repair. In reflecting on its failures, it gave the resident compensation of £250, which taking into account the Ombudsman’s Guidance on remedies, is reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident also raised that she had to spend £152 on redecorating the bedroom and bathroom following the repairs. The landlord appropriately agreed to reimburse the resident for this cost. The landlord’s offer to reimburse this amount was a further indication that it accepted its service had fallen below the standard expected.
In its final complaint response, as the resident had set out the significant distress caused to her daughters throughout the time of the ceiling collapse and the following repairs period, the landlord offered the resident a £250 amazon voucher for her children. It said this was to apologise for the children’s personal experience. This acknowledgement of the distress caused was appropriate and showed empathy towards the resident and her family for the distress caused.
In this case, the landlord has acknowledged and identified its failings which at times were significant. However, throughout its complaint process it has taken the following steps to ‘put things right’:
1. Offering appropriate levels of compensation as the case evolved which totalled £1,052.
2. Offering redress to the resident’s children for the distress caused.
3. Offering apologies where it was right to do so.
4. Repairing the resident’s home swiftly.
5. Acknowledging where its service could have improved and ensuring it raised the appropriate learning with the relevant teams.
Therefore, while this investigation considers the landlord’s handling of the situation could have reasonably improved. It has recognised the impact on the resident and her family and has taken proportionate steps to put things right.
As such an offer of reasonable redress has been made in the circumstances.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to its handling of leak and the associated repairs which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

As a finding of reasonable redress has been made based on the compensation offered in this case, the landlord should pay the compensation offered if it has not already done so.