Estuary Housing Association Limited (202313827)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313827

Estuary Housing Association Limited

21 February 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 the resident’s reports of a roof leak into the loft.
2. The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is a leaseholder and she lives in a second floor flat in a retirement complex. The landlord is a housing association which owns the complex.
4. The evidence suggests that the landlord had repaired the roof before the resident bought her flat in May 2021. From July 2021, the resident raised queries about the previous repair work and made multiple reports of a leak into the loft above her flat. In April 2023, the landlord concluded the moisture in the loft was due to condensation.
5. The resident emailed on 20 April 2023 disagreeing with its conclusion. The landlord logged a complaint and gave its stage 1 response on 15 May 2023. It said it had not found any active leaks since it last repaired the roof in November 2022 but was due to carry out further testing.
6. On 21 May 2023 the resident emailed the landlord saying she was dissatisfied with the response as the leak had not been resolved. She still disagreed the moisture was condensation.
7. The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 28 June 2023 which said it had done a hose test and found no signs of a leak into the loft. Its surveyor would inspect again when it was raining.
8. The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her reports. At the time she wanted the roof to be “properly” assessed and repaired to make sure it was watertight. The landlord has since carried out further work and the resident now wants the landlord to survey the roof and apologise for the inconvenience caused to her.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. Paragraph 42.b. of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may decide not to consider complaints that were not brought to a landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. A reasonable period would normally be within 12 months of the matter arising.
10. We acknowledge that the resident raised queries about the previous roof repairs in July 2021 and reported the leak into the loft from October 2021.
11. However, the scope of this investigation is the landlord’s handling of reports made from 7 April 2022. This was approximately 12 months before the landlord logged the formal complaint and there is no evidence of an earlier complaint. As such, we have not assessed the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports before 7 April 2022.
12. We also acknowledge that the resident continued to report the roof leak after the end of the landlord’s complaint process on 28 June 2023. We have not assessed the landlord’s handling of her later reports as it has not had the opportunity to address this through its complaints process.
13. We have considered the current position relating to the leak when making our orders and recommendations. The resident can make a further complaint to the landlord if she is dissatisfied with its handling of her reports over the last 12 months.
14. When we spoke to the resident during our investigation, she raised concerns about the cost of roof repairs passed on to residents through the service charge. She felt that the service charge would be lower if the landlord had been more effective in handling the roof repairs.
15. We have not considered the impact on the service charge in this investigation. This is because it was not part of the complaint that completed the landlord’s complaint process. The resident can make a further complaint to the landlord if she is dissatisfied with its service charges.

Reports of a roof leak

16. It is not disputed that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure of the building including the roof. The matter in dispute is whether the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of the leak appropriately and took reasonable steps to repair the roof.
17. The landlord has repairing obligations under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Its specific obligations are set out in the resident’s lease agreement.
18. When a fault is reported, the landlord should decide if there is a repair it is obliged to do. If so, the landlord should complete the repair within a reasonable timescale and to a reasonable standard. What is considered to be a reasonable period depends on the repair work needed.
19. The landlord gave us a timeline of events showing when the resident had reported the leak and what it had done in response. We compared its timeline with correspondence it exchanged with the resident and other evidence provided.
20. The evidence shows that the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of the roof leak between 7 April and 20 November 2022. It arranged roof repairs which were done in May and November 2022.
21. The resident made 5 further reports that the roof had leaked during rain between 7 December 2022 and 13 April 2023. The landlord had inspected with its contractor on 19 January 2023 and found the loft to be dry with no signs of damp or mould. It concluded that water stains reported by the resident were due to timbers still drying out. As such, it was reasonable that it did not order further repairs at that point.
22. The landlord’s timeline suggests it may have inspected in February 2023 but there is no evidence of what the outcomes were. This means that the landlord has not demonstrated that it responded appropriately at the time. It also suggests it did not have adequate record keeping practices in place.
23. The landlord inspected again on 14 April 2023 and concluded the moisture in the loft was caused by condensation. In a later internal email, the surveyor explained the basis of their assessment. The evidence shows that the resident was aware of the conclusion of condensation after the inspection. However, there is no evidence that the reasons for it were explained to her at the time. This was a failing.
24. While we acknowledge that the resident disputed the assessment that the moisture was condensation, the landlord was entitled to rely on its surveyor’s professional opinion. It was reasonable that the landlord agreed to carry out a hose test when the resident disagreed with its surveyor’s conclusion.
25. There was a short delay in the test being done because scaffolding left in place from the last repair was removed earlier on the day the test was due to be done. This suggests the landlord had not communicated with its contractor about its need for the scaffolding to remain in place.
26. The hose test done on 26 June 2023 did not find a leak. However, the resident had sent the landlord photographs of the leak taken 4 days previously after a thunderstorm. It was reasonable that the landlord committed to inspecting again during rainfall. This suggests that, while the landlord did not think the roof was still leaking, it was willing to continue investigating the resident’s concerns.
27. The landlord inspected on 17 July 2023 during rain and found the loft to be dry with no signs of water ingress. We note that the resident continued to report signs of a leak from 24 July 2023 and that the landlord agreed there was a leak on 13 October 2023. We note that the landlord arranged for its contractor to do further repairs.
28. Overall, the landlord has demonstrated that it took reasonable steps to repair the roof. This is because it repaired it in May 2022 and November 2022. However, it has not demonstrated that it responded to all the resident’s reports appropriately. This is because there is no evidence it explained why it felt moisture in the loft was condensation.
29. We note that the leak has not affected the resident’s flat. As such, the landlord’s failings amount to service failure in its handling of her reports.
30. The resident has explained the distress and inconvenience caused to her. It was inconvenient for her to keep checking for signs of the leak, report it multiple times and give access for inspections. She felt the landlord dismissed her reports once it had decided there was condensation and this upset her.
31. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £100 compensation. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s policy and guidance on remedies. It appropriately reflects the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failings. We have recommended that the landlord meet with the resident to discuss whether a specialist survey of the roof is needed.

Complaint handling

32. Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must:
    1. Acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
    2. Give a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement.
    3. Give a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledging the escalation request.
33. The resident told us that she had not intended to make a formal complaint to the landlord.
34. The evidence shows she had emailed the landlord on 17 April 2023 reporting further water ingress and, on 20 April 2023, disagreeing that the moisture was condensation. Internal emails show the landlord considered the time period over which she had been reporting roof issues, as well as her disagreement with its surveyor’s assessment, when deciding to log a complaint.
35. The landlord’s decision to log a complaint was reasonable. It was in line with the Code which defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction about a landlord’s service, actions or inactions on a matter previously brought to its attention. It was reasonable that the landlord felt the resident’s emails met this definition.
36. The landlord acknowledged the complaint and gave its stage 1 response within the timescales required by the Code.
37. Its stage 1 response did not adequately address the matters complained about. For example, the landlord acknowledged the resident disagreed with its surveyor’s assessment that the moisture in the loft was being caused by condensation. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explained why the surveyor had reached this conclusion, but it did not.
38. The landlord should have addressed the resident’s point that her photographs showed water leaking into the loft and that she could hear dripping noises during rain. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explained why it felt this did not support her belief that the roof was leaking.
39. It should also have addressed her point that her surveyor disagreed that her loft insulation could be contributing to the condensation.
40. The resident told the landlord she was not satisfied with its stage 1 response on 21 May 2023. The landlord should have escalated the complaint. It was appropriate that it later acknowledged its delay in logging the escalation and gave compensation.
41. After it logged the escalation on 1 June 2023, the landlord gave its stage 2 response (of 28 June 2023) within the 20 working day timescale required by the Code.
42. The stage 2 response gave a detailed explanation of the hose test the landlord had done since its stage 1 response. However, it again failed to address why it felt the resident’s evidence did not support her belief that there was a roof leak. Nor did it explain why the landlord felt the moisture was condensation.
43. As such, the landlord’s stage 2 response again failed to address the matters complained about. It was inadequate in supporting the landlord’s apparent position that it did not think the roof was leaking.
44. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. This is because it did not address the matters complained about in either of its responses and this is an important requirement of the Code.
45. The resident has explained the distress and inconvenience caused to her. It had been inconvenient to communicate with the landlord about the complaint as well as the roof leak. She was disappointed that it had not spoken with her during the complaint process to understand her position and felt its responses were “patronising”.
46. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay compensation of £250. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s policy and guidance on remedies and appropriately recognises the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings.

Determination

47. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the roof leak.
48. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of her complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

49. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with the following orders:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise. The apology must acknowledge the failings we have identified and the impact they had on the resident. The landlord must send us a copy of its apology.
    2. Pay the resident total compensation of £350. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. It is made up of:
       1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak.
       2. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her complaint.

Recommendations

50. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord meet with the resident to discuss the current situation with the roof. The landlord should decide if a specialist survey is needed and explain the reasons for its decision to the resident.