Estuary Housing Association Limited (202321641)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321641

Estuary Housing Association Limited

23 May 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 repairs.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident lives in a 4-bedroom house and is an assured tenant with the landlord, a housing association.
4. On 12 January 2023, the resident reported repairs to her water closet (WC) and hall ceilings were required following a leak. A surveyor attended on 17 January 2023 and recommended various repairs throughout the property.
5. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 30 March 2023 about the way it was handling her repairs. This was acknowledged on 6 April 2023, and a stage 1 response was issued on 21 April 2023. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint, apologised, and said it would complete the repairs as quickly as possible.
6. The resident escalated her complaint on 23 May 2023 as the landlord had not completed the repairs, and her WC ceiling had collapsed. It acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 1 June 2023 and was responded to on 14 August 2023. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response said:
   1. the repair to the resident’s ceiling was completed on 11 August 2023, but other works remain outstanding
   2. it was sorry for the time taken to resolve the matter
   3. the complaint was upheld, and it had agreed for a joint inspection to take place between itself and the contractor to review outstanding works and coordinate repairs
   4. compensation would be considered once the works were completed
7. The resident referred her complaint to the Service in September 2023. She said that the landlord had not taken any action since its stage 2 complaint response. To resolve the complaint, she said that the outstanding repairs should be completed, and compensation paid.
8. The landlord has provided evidence to show that the works were completed in August and September 2024. It conducted a post inspection on 17 September 2024, to confirm there were no works outstanding that had been raised as part of the resident’s complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation has focussed on the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported unhappiness with its actions prior to our involvement. Any new issues, such as the issues with damp and mould or the damage caused by a ceiling collapse, have not been subject to the formal complaint process. Therefore, these issues can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if needed.
10. The resident has told us that she could have been fatally injured by the ceiling falling through and wanted compensation for the risk to her life. While we are an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or if a landlord’s actions or inaction caused the roof to collapse. Similarly, we cannot calculate or award damages in the same way a court would. Such matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. However, we will consider if there was heightened distress and inconvenience due to the actions or inaction of the landlord.
11. We have decided that it is fair to consider the actions of the landlord after it issued its stage 2 complaint response in August 2023. This is because the landlord said that following the conclusion of the repairs it would reconsider the complaint and offer compensation to the resident. While the landlord has not completed a review, it did have the opportunity to do so. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord has had a fair opportunity to consider its actions post stage 2 and put things right.

Assessment

Handling of the resident’s repairs

12. The landlord’s repairs policy says emergency repairs will start no later than 4 hours after a report and made safe within 24 hours. Routine repairs will begin within 20 working days at the resident’s convenience.
13. The resident reported various repairs to the landlord, and these can be grouped into 2 sections, which are:
    1. WC and hallway ceiling repairs and painting
    2. repairs recommended by the surveyor which included:
       1. a kitchen renewal
       2. repairs to internal doors that were sticking
       3. repair to the front door ledge which was missing
       4. installation of a banister missing on the stairs
       5. a bathroom panel installation
14. We will deal with each repair issue separately and make an overall finding based on the landlord’s actions.

WC and hallway ceiling repairs and painting

15. A repair to “make good” the WC and hall ceilings was raised on 12 January 2023. The landlord’s contractor did not attend this appointment until 6 March 2023 which was 40 working days after the order was raised. This was unreasonable as the time taken to attend the repair was outside of its policy timeframes. This caused the resident some inconvenience as she had to wait an unreasonable time for the repair to being to take place.
16. The contractor rebooked the repair job for 21 March 2023 as initially there was no access at the resident’s property. When they attended the new appointment, follow on work was recommended to board and skim the ceilings. However, there is no evidence that this follow-on work was booked in line with its “repairs promise”, which says contractors were to book follow-on appointments before an operative leaves. This was unreasonable and caused the resident some inconvenience.
17. On 27 March 2023 a surveyor attended the resident’s property. As part of the works recorded, it said that the WC needed replastering, and that the WC ceiling was going to fall down. Following this, the landlord raised an emergency job to make safe the WC ceiling which was attended to the same day. The landlord’s actions were reasonable as it attended within its repairs policy timeframes for an emergency repair.
18. At the emergency appointment a contractor recorded that the ceiling was safe, and there was no work to complete. This contradicted the surveyors view that the ceiling would fall down. While the landlord is entitled to rely on the opinion of the contractor, as there were contradicting views it could have done more to satisfy itself that the ceiling was safe. For example, it could have consulted the surveyor and contractor to decide a collaborative approach on how to deal with the matter.
19. However, it is important not to look back with hindsight knowing the ceiling did collapse and say that the landlord’s actions or inaction caused this. Even if the landlord did more at the time (March 2023) to satisfy itself, the result may still have been the same. Therefore, we do not consider the actions taken by the landlord in March 2023 to be unreasonable. It did follow its policy for emergency appointments.
20. On 28 March 2023, the landlord arranged for replastering to take place on 2 May 2023. The contractor missed the appointment for 2 May 2023 and no explanation has been provided for this. The appointment was rearranged with the resident for the next available date, 30 May 2023. This was unreasonable and does not align with the repairs policy guide which says the landlord will keep residents informed. The failure to attend the appointment when scheduled caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
21. On 19 May 2023, the resident contacted the landlord as her WC ceiling had collapsed. The landlord attended the same day to make safe the WC. It also traced and remedied a leak at the property which had caused the ceiling collapse. Follow on work to plaster board, plaster and paint the WC was requested. The landlord’s actions here were reasonable. It attended within its policy for emergencies and rectified the root cause of the ceiling collapse.
22. The landlord attended the appointment on 30 May 2023 to complete the relevant follow-on works, but the WC was still too wet. A new appointment was arranged for 4 July 2023 to allow the room to dry. The landlord also arranged an appointment to complete painting for the WC and hallway which was scheduled for 19 July 2023. This was reasonable and aligned with its repairs promise.
23. The landlord fixed the ceiling and hallway on 4 July 2023. However, it did not attend the 19 July 2023 appointment. The resident was told the day before that the appointment was rescheduled. The landlord explained this was because a higher-priority job needed to be finished. The rescheduled work was completed on 10 August 2023. Though outside its routine repair timescales, the landlord explained the delay and rearranged the appointment at the resident’s convenience. This was reasonable.

Repairs recommended by the surveyor

24. On 17 January 2023, the landlord’s surveyor conducted an inspection of the resident’s property and recommended works. However, these works were not raised until 22 February 2023. This was 26 working days after the inspection. The time taken to raise the works was unreasonable and did not align with its repairs policy to complete routine repairs within 20 working days. Even if the landlord considered the work was more complex, there is no evidence to show it communicated with the resident to explain any delays. This caused the resident some distress and inconvenience.
25. The landlord followed its no access process on 6 and 10 March 2023 to reschedule appointments. This was reasonable and ensured that the repair was proactively managed, with a new repair being arranged for 27 March 2023.
26. On 27 March 2023, the contractor attended but did not complete the recommended works. A new repair was raised the same day, for the same works to take place. This was unreasonable, the resident was expecting the works recommended by the surveyor to be conducted on 27 March 2023. The landlord did not explain why this could not be done, nor did it manage her expectations that it may not complete all work at one appointment. This caused the resident some further distress and inconvenience.
27. Following, the new repair being raised a contractor attended on 29 March 2023. No works were carried out at this appointment and a variation order (VO) was sent to the landlord due to the amount of work and time needed to complete the repairs. A new appointment was rescheduled for 2 June 2023. This caused a further delay, which increased the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
28. On 30 March 2023, the resident raised a formal complaint about the time taken to complete the repairs. In its stage 1 complaint response dated 21 April 2023, the landlord said it would review the VO to approve this and ensure that the repairs were completed as quickly as possible.
29. However, no further progress was made with these repairs despite the resident’s escalation of her formal complaint on 23 May 2023. Instead, the contractor attended the originally scheduled 2 June 2023 appointment and advised again that it was a large job, further time was required, and a VO needed approval. The failure of the landlord to approve the VO as set out in its stage 1 complaint response, caused the resident some significant distress and inconvenience due to the further delays.
30. Following 2 June 2023, no further action was taken by the landlord to complete the repairs until 14 August 2023 when it issued a stage 2 complaint response and agreed to conduct a joint inspection. This meant that 145 working days after the initial surveyor’s inspection, the resident was still in the same position with almost all recommendations made by the surveyor still outstanding. This was unreasonable and continued to cause the resident some significant distress and inconvenience.
31. Following the stage 2 complaint response the landlord did not arrange the joint inspection as it had agreed. This was further evidence of its failure to effectively manage the resident’s repairs. The resident had to chase the landlord through her Housing Officer on 21 September 2023 where it was highlighted that the landlord’s failures were very stressful for the resident.
32. Despite the Housing Officer highlighting the need to take action and complete the repairs there is no evidence to show that any action was taken to conduct a further inspection or complete the repairs before October 2023.
33. We understand that the resident was unavailable at her property between October 2023 and April 2024, and the landlord was unable to carry out any work in this period.
34. There was then a further 3-month gap after April 2024 before the kitchen work was completed between 8 and 19 July 2024. And a further month before work was completed to fix the internal doors sticking and install a banister on the stairs. It was not until 17 September 2024, that the landlord satisfied itself that all work was completed via a post inspection. This was unreasonable and further heightened the distress and inconvenience felt by the resident.

Overall summary of the landlord’s handling of repairs

35. To summarise, the time taken to complete both the ceiling repairs and surveyor’s recommendations was unreasonable and did not align with its policy timescales or repairs promise. While there were some positive actions by the landlord in its reaction to the ceiling collapse, the overall repairs service provided to the resident was unreasonable.
36. This is highlighted by the time taken to complete the surveyor’s recommendations. The landlord compounded these failings with its poor communication, often leaving the resident to chase for updates. It also did not follow through with promised actions to ensure quick resolution of the repairs. Based on the above, we consider that the landlord’s actions amount to maladministration.
37. We recognise that the issues remained unresolved for an excessive period, and this was not fair to the resident. Even discounting the period between October 2023 and April 2024 into account, the time taken to complete the repair was over 299 working days. These avoidable delays caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience.
38. The landlord has told us that it reviewed the case with its contractor as agreed in its stage 2 complaint response but decided that compensation would not be offered. This does not align with its complaints policy which says that compensation should be considered in line with its compensation policy. This policy says that “discretionary payments”, should be considered. The policy provides a matrix which sets out examples of where payments would be made, examples given are:
    1. mistakes take longer to resolve, such as a repair is repeatedly not completed
    2. where a resident has been caused a great deal of worry, and the mistake was significantly distressing
    3. instances of unacceptable which may involve a resident having to chase several departments, or waiting months for issues to be resolved
39. The failure to offer compensation for the impact to the resident in line with its policies compounded the distress and inconvenience the resident felt and was a missed opportunity to try and resolve the case with the resident.
40. Our remedies guidance says that where there has been a failure that has had a significant impact on the resident a payment of between £600 to £1,000 should be considered.
41. In this case, the time taken was not the sole impact to the resident. There was also ineffective communication from the landlord and a failure to follow through with promised actions which worsened the situation. Taking all the circumstances into account, a payment of £800 fairly recognises the distress and inconvenience caused, and the time and trouble taken to deal with the landlord’s poor communication over a prolonged period.

Complaint handling

42. The landlord’s complaint policy says that it will:
    1. acknowledge receipt of complaints within 5 working days
    2. respond at stage 1 within 10 working days from the day the complaint is logged
    3. respond at stage 2 within 20 working days from the day the complaint is logged
    4. contact the resident and explain the reasons if an extension of time is needed – an extension beyond 20 working days should be agreed with the resident
43. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 30 March 2023. The landlord acknowledged and responded to this at stage 1 of its complaint process within its policy timescales. This was reasonable.
44. The resident escalated her complaint on 23 May 2023. This was neither acknowledged, nor responded to by the landlord in line with its policy timescales. The landlord did not contact the resident to agree an extension or explain any reason for the 38 working day delay. This was unreasonable and caused the resident some inconvenience as she had to chase the landlord for a response.
45. Taking all the circumstances into account, we consider there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. Our remedies guidance recommends a payment of £100 to £600 where a failure adversely affects the resident, but the impact was not permanent.
46. When considering an appropriate remedy, it is important to highlight that the resident’s complaint was about poor communication and delays. Therefore, the fact that the landlord’s complaint handling failings are due to delay and poor communication worsened the impact to the resident. It reinforced the resident’s view that the landlord had not learned from its failings and undermined her relationship with the landlord.
47. Therefore, we consider a payment of £200 is fair and recognises both the impact of the repeated failings and that the impact is not ongoing.

Determination

48. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the:
    1. resident’s repairs
    2. associated complaint

Orders

49. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. write an apology to the resident and send a copy to us
    2. pay compensation of £1,000 to the resident and send evidence to us that this has been done, broken down as:
       1. £800 for the impact to the resident in its handling of the repairs
       2. £200 for the impact to the resident in its complaint handling