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

Estuary Housing Association Limited (202232040)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232040

Estuary Housing Association Limited

16 June 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

1.             The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:

  1. Repairs to the resident’s front porch.
  2. The associated complaint.

Background

2.             The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom house where she has lived since March 2003.

3.             On 18 June 2021 the resident reported issues with the front door lock along with a gap between the porch and the property. The landlord’s contractor attended on 9 July 2021. They said they were unable to repair the locking mechanism and would need to dismantle the porch to complete the repair.

4.             The contractor surveyed the property on 16 July 2021. It recommended that the landlord replace the front door and side window and complete works to the supporting wall.

5.             The resident complained to the landlord on 8 November 2022. She said that the delays in repairing her front door and porch window were unacceptable. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 22 November 2022. It apologised for the delays, noting industry wide issues with door and window manufacturing at that time. It said it had asked its contractor to contact the resident with an update.

6.             A supplementary response followed on 8 December 2022. The landlord again apologised for the delays, stating it was aware that a repair could not be completed following an appointment on 2 December 2022. It said an additional survey was required, with both a representative from the landlord and contractor being requested to attend.

7.             A second survey carried out on 24 February 2023 highlighted the same findings as the original survey. However, due to the cost involved, the landlord reassigned the work to its planned works programme for completion.

8.             The landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 5 June 2023, following a recommendation to do so from the Ombudsman. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 9 August 2023, in which it partially upheld the complaint. It said it would now carry out the works as part of its planned works programme rather than as a repair. It noted this would mean a longer wait time, but it hoped to complete the works before Christmas. It upheld the resident’s complaint about delays in the works, but did not uphold her complaint about increased energy bills due to the draught from the gap in the porch. It awarded £100 compensation for the repairs delays and a £10 shopping voucher for its complaint handling.

9.             The resident escalated the complaint to this service on 21 August 2023. She said that due to the delays that had already occurred and the knock-on effect of increased energy bills, she did not wish to go through another winter with the current repairs outstanding.

10.        The landlord and resident have confirmed that the planned works were completed early in 2024.

Assessment and findings

Policy and Procedures

11.        The landlord has 2 categories for all work orders: emergency (within 24 hours) or routine (up to 20 working days). The repairs contact centre determines the category based on an agreed definition of what constitutes an emergency or routine repair.

12.        The landlord’s repair policy says a full-time dedicated employee from its contractor is available to the relevant departments to resolve repair queries from residents and staff. Its staff can view the notes recorded by the contractor to help improve first contact resolution performance.

13.        The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. Stage 1 responses must be issued within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. Stage 2 responses must be issued within 20 working days of an escalation request.

The landlord’s handling of reported delays to front porch repairs

14.        Sections 11 and 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 require the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the resident’s property in good repair. It must ensure that the property remains fit for human habitation throughout the tenancy. The landlord must look at the condition of its properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. 

15.        The resident initially reported a gap between the porch and house along with intermittent lock issues with the front door on 18 June 2021. The landlord responded appropriately and promptly to this report. Its contractor attended the property within 15 working days and diagnosed a new door and window for the porch would be needed. Its communication during this time was clear and appropriate.

16.        The landlord’s records show that following this initial visit, the contractor had surveyed and provided the landlord a quotation for the works by 10 August 2021. However, between October 2021 to November 2022 the records illustrate a breakdown in processes and communication with both its contractor and the resident. Several emails were passed between departments with no decision being taken on a resolution. This was a clear service failure.

17.        There is also a gap in records provided from February 2022 when, due to staff changes, a new survey was raised by the contractor to confirm the sizes for the door and window prior to the order being made. There is no evidence provided to show this happened. By April 2022, the work order had been cancelled with no explanation given. This left the resident contacting both the landlord and contractor for updates with them providing little to no information. From April 2022 to October 2022, there were several more internal emails between the landlord and contractor, the last of which was confirmation from the contractor that its supplier had closed the order.

18.        The period between April 2022 to October 2022 illustrates a service failure by the landlord in not following its processes, along with a breakdown in communication with its contractor. Its policy states a dedicated employee from its contractor is available to the relevant departments to resolve repair queries from residents and staff. The landlord’s records show this policy was ineffective as it did not provide appropriate oversight of this repair. Due to this failing, the resident was left with no resolution or information.

19.        The evidence shows no further communication with the resident until the landlord’s stage 1 response (in November 2022). Following a failed lock repair by its contractor on 2 December 2022, an additional survey was arranged for 20 December 2022. This appointment was then cancelled on the day due to the operative working in a different location. An alternative date was offered at this point, but this was not convenient for the resident. To reduce the impact on the resident having to report these situations back to the landlord, it should consider owning a complaint through to its completion. In both the stage 1 and supplementary responses, it was left with the resident to contact them if the planned actions failed.

20.        The contractor attended on 23 December 2022 to repair the lock. However, they were unable to complete the repair and the landlord’s records do not show why this appointment was arranged. The resident called on the same day and expressed frustration at the poor communication as it was evident she expected a survey not a repair. This again illustrates the breakdown in communication between landlord and contractor.

21.        On 17 January 2023 the resident contacted the landlord by email. She set out her frustration and made a subject access request. She said that only a temporary silicone fix had been applied to the gap between the porch and house. She added that the property was only reaching 11 degrees with the thermostat set to 21 degrees and running her heating all day. She also explained that her bills were now £189 per month and this was unaffordable.

22.        It would have been reasonable for the landlord to carry out an investigation to determine whether the resident was experiencing excess cold, or whether there was a reasonable degree of thermal comfort in line with the decent home standard. The landlord has provided no evidence of carrying out any such investigation, which was a failing.

23.        Representatives from both the landlord and contractor completed a survey on 24 February 2023. They made the same recommendations as the previous surveyor. The landlord told the resident that the work required would now come under a planned works programme. It said this could mean a longer wait time.

24.        In Its stage 2 response, the landlord addressed the decision to move the repair to a planned works programme as financial, due to a repair not being cost effective. It also advised that the asset management team would be appointing a contractor and be in contact to arrange a further pre-works inspection by August 2023. It hoped to complete the work before Christmas 2023.

25.        When a major and complex repair is needed, it can be reasonable for a landlord to add the repair to its planned works programme rather than carrying out a full repair at that stage. This is because of the amount of works, specialist contractors, and funding that would need to be arranged.

26.        However, we would expect a landlord to provide regular, meaningful and ongoing updates to residents when it is unable to complete a repair in the timescales set out in its repairs policy. It should also take steps to identify and carry out any interim repairs to prevent ongoing damage and limit the impact on its residents. When it is unable to take effective temporary measures to limit the impact on its residents, we would expect a landlord to carry out a full and lasting repair as soon as possible, rather than adding the repair to a planned works programme. It did not do so, which was unreasonable.

27.        The resident raised concerns about her increased energy consumption leading to increased bills. This part of the complaint was not upheld on the grounds that ‘there are things customers can do to reduce the impact of front door draughts’. The landlord was unfair in its assessment. It was clear from the surveys that the main issue causing the heat loss related to a vertical gap between the porch and house. The resident would have had very little ability to mitigate such an issue.

28.        While the landlord recognised the delays in works being completed and the distress this would have caused the resident, the £100 compensation offered did not take into account that the work was still not been complete (at the point of its August 2023 final complaint response). Nor was there a confirmed date for this to take place. This likely did little to reassure the resident that, following the latest survey, the matter would be resolved. Nor did it take her reports of increased energy bills and cold living conditions seriously or seek to investigate these. The amount offered is also not in keeping with the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies for a failing over a prolonged period of time. As such, it should offer an additional £550 compensation, this is comprised of:

  1. £250 for the resident’s time and trouble.
  2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

29.        Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the porch repairs. The landlord should review its policy and procedure regarding its contractor relationship along with its use of risk assessments in line with HHSRS guidance (where residents report related concerns). As such, an order is made below.

The associated complaint

30.        In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint, we consider whether the landlord followed proper procedure, good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all circumstances of the case.

31.        The resident first raised her complaint on 8 November 2022. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 22 November 2022. This was within the 10 working day timescale highlighted in its policies.

32.        The landlord issued a stage 1 supplementary response on 8 December 2022. The Ombudsman welcomes and encourages landlords to learn from complaints. It is positive that the landlord continued to update the resident. The landlord responded to the resident in a timely manner and offered assurance that the issue had now been raised with senior managers, both within its organisation and its contractors.

33.        In her emails to the landlord on 17 January 2023, it was clear that the resident was seeking to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The landlord did not acknowledge this request. This caused her additional time and trouble pursuing her request with her local MP and the Ombudsman in May 2023.

34.        The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 9 August 2023. This was 52 working days after it acknowledged the complaint escalation on 5 June 2023. This was also more than 6 months after the resident sought to originally escalate her complaint in January 2023. Its response was considerably outside the 20 working days timescale in its complaint handling policy.

35.        The landlord appropriately apologised for its complaint handling failure at stage 2. However, its offer of a £10 shopping voucher did not reflect the detriment caused to the resident over an extended period.

36.        Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. It did not escalate the complaint appropriately when it should have. The landlord did not listen to the resident’s concerns or look to address these adequately. It did not learn from the failings that occurred following its stage 1 response and it did not monitor the complaint to its conclusion. As such, it should offer compensation of £200 reflective of the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.

Determination

37.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:

  1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s front porch.
  2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

38.        Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:

  1. Provide an apology from a member of its leadership team for the failings identified in this report.
  2. Pay the resident £850 in compensation. This is comprised of:
    1. £100 compensation offered in its stage 2 resolution (if it has not already paid this).
    2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in repairs to the front porch.
    3. £250 for the time and trouble caused by the delays in repairs to the front porch.
    4. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.
  3. Write to the resident to request evidence of her increased energy bills during the winter months for 2021, 2022 and 2023.

39.        Once the landlord receives these bills from the resident, within 6 weeks of receipt, it should assess whether it considers the delays in repairing the porch contributed to the resident’s charges, and write to her to set out its decision. If the resident does not provide the required evidence, the landlord must make an offer based on the information available to it within 10 weeks of the date of our report. If it does not consider its delays contributed to any increased energy costs, it should set out its reasoning for that conclusion to the resident.

40.        Within 12 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must conduct a management review of this case to consider how it can improve its communication with its contractor and what processes it has in place to complete risk assessments where residents report a hazardously cold property. It must provide learnings to this Service.

41.        The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within the timescales set out above.