Estuary Housing Association Limited (202404885)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202404885

Estuary Housing Association Limited

26 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the hot water system.

Background

The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy and has lived in the 2-bed maisonette since March 2019. The landlord has said it was told of her children’s physical and mobility vulnerabilities at stage 2 of the complaint process.
On 20 July 2023 the resident told the landlord the hot water was not getting hot enough. Following 2 scheduled appointments that were cancelled by a contractor, on 11 August 2023 it found faults with the hot water immersion elements and wiring which were resolved the same day. In October 2023 a new off-peak consumer unit (CCU) was installed, and while further repairs were completed to the immersion heater, the problem continued.
The resident engaged with her support worker who on 14 November 2023 asked the landlord for help in resolving the problem. She told the landlord 2 of the 3 children in the property were vulnerable, and the problem was affecting their health. On the same day, the landlord asked a contractor to attend. However it missed the appointment.
The resident complained to the landlord on 7 December 2023. She said:
1. there had been a lack of hot water since July 2023
2. it was having an impact on her vulnerable children
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaint process on 13 December 2023 when it confirmed:
1. the resident had been without hot water since July 2023
2. a contractor missed appointments on 26 July 2023 as the van broke down, and on 28 July 2023 due to sickness
3. an appointment on 2 August 2023 was rearranged to 11 August 2023 when one contractor rectified a fault with the hot water immersion elements, and another resolved a wiring issue
4. a contractor had installed a new CCU on 6 October 2023
5. a contractor replaced the hot water elements and removed an air lock in the bathroom on 25 October 2023 and referred an issue with the CCU to the appropriate contractor
6. it had arranged an appointment for 18 December 2023 to resolve the issue
7. it upheld the complaint, apologised for the miscommunication between the landlord and contractors, and offered £50 for “the time and inconvenience caused”
On 18 December 2023 a contractor found a loose cable on the CCU. It connected the cable, completed checks on the electric circuit and confirmed it was working. It asked the resident to contact it if the problem persisted. The contractor confirmed it did not receive any contact.
On 2 January 2024 the resident reported she was having to use the boost to get hot water. On 4 January 2024 a contractor confirmed to the resident it was a meter problem, and she needed to contact her supplier.
The resident reported ongoing issues and on 11 March 2024, a contractor found the immersion had power but was tripping. It returned on 18 March 2024 when it said the immersion was not working and arranged an appointment for 27 March 2024 to replace the element.
The resident escalated her complaint on 19 March 2024. She remained unhappy with:
1. the lack of competency in completing the repair which she said was still outstanding and was getting worse as the boost was not working
2. the lack of empathy from an agent during a call
3. contractors cancelling or missing appointments without notice, which was an inconvenience
4. the miscommunication between departments
5. the stress and inconvenience, the financial loss from travelling to grandparents with specialist bathing equipment for her children who had additional needs, and the number of calls made to chase appointments
6. the issue not being managed as an emergency considering her children’s health needs
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 24 April 2024 in which it said:
1. electrical and visual checks had been completed following the stage 1 response
2. the heating and hot water was working but the system kept breaking
3. the on-peak heating element was running continuously due to a lack of the Economy 7
4. the resident needed to contact her supplier so it could check and reconnect the meter for Economy 7 which should resolve the problem
5. the resident should let it know when the supplier was attending so it could attend at the same time
6. it was unable to listen to the call recording so could not confirm or deny the claim made, but confirmed it would provide further training to the agent
7. it was sorry for the cancelled appointments and the contractor had issued a voucher to acknowledge this
8. there had been miscommunication between the landlord and contractors which had led to confusion in diagnosing and rectifying the problem and reiterated the £50 compensation offered at stage 1 to acknowledge this
9. it apologised for the stress the matter had caused, said it had not been told of the children’s needs, and said it had asked the Housing Officer to contact her to discuss this further
10. it upheld the complaint and offered an additional £250 compensation by way of apology and in “recognition of the stress caused”
The resident contacted her supplier who asked her to get a report that confirmed the fault was with the meter. She repeatedly asked the landlord for this from March 2024 before receiving it in October 2024. During this time, she continued to report the problem to the landlord who attended but said the issue was with the meter and was the suppliers responsibility to rectify.
In contact with this Service in January 2025, the resident confirmed:
1. she was still experiencing the problem with the lack of hot water
2. she had contacted her supplier who said it was the landlord’s responsibility, but the landlord maintained it was a supplier issue
3. she provided the electrical report to the supplier but was still waiting for an appointment
4. as a resolution, she would like the landlord to consult with the supplier to fix the problem, and a revised offer of compensation

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has referred to the impact the situation has had on the health of her and her family. Although we can consider the impact the situation has had on the resident and whether the landlord acted reasonably, we cannot determine liability for damage to health. These are matters better suited to an insurance claim or court. Any compensation offer will be assessed in line with our remedies guidance. The resident has been advised to seek legal advice if she wishes to pursue this matter.

Repairs to the hot water system

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states the landlord is obliged to keep in good repair and proper working order any installation provided by it for space heating, water heating and sanitation and for the supply of water, gas and electricity including water heaters and central heating installations. This is reflected in the resident’s tenancy agreement.
It is our understanding that the resident’s hot water system is an immersion heater with peak and off-peak settings to produce hot water. The system also has a ‘boost’ function to provide hot water when more is needed.
The landlord’s repair policy states it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs up to 20 working days. The category is based on the agreed definition of what constitutes an emergency or routine repair. The landlord’s website confirms only a lack of water is classed as an emergency.
On 20 July 2023 the resident told the landlord the hot water was not getting hot enough. It raised a repair with a contractor for 26 July 2023. The resident had not reported a total loss of water and had not referred to the children’s vulnerabilities at this time, so the repair was not classed as an emergency. The landlord’s response was appropriate and was consistent with its policy.
The contractor experienced problems out of its control and appointments had to be rearranged. It contacted the resident and provided new appointment dates which were still in line with policy. This was reasonable.
On 31 July 2023 the resident told the landlord there was no hot water and she was using a kettle to wash. She said her children were disabled and needed access to hot water. The landlord spoke to a contractor who advised an element change was required and parts were needed. The contractor said it would call the resident when the parts arrived. This was appropriate.
However, as per our spotlight report on heating and hot water in social housing, published in February 2021, a landlord must act promptly, particularly where issues are having a significant impact on residents. It should be aware of the needs of vulnerable residents and respond accordingly. It would have been appropriate at this time for the landlord to obtain further details regarding the children’s vulnerabilities and needs before considering prioritising the repair because of this. There is no evidence the landlord did this. This was a failure by the landlord.
A contractor attended on 11 August 2023 and confirmed the fault with the hot water immersion elements. A different contractor attended the same day to resolve this and on 6 October 2023 a new off-peak CCU was installed. This was appropriate and demonstrated the landlord’s attempts of resolving the problem.
A contractor attended again on 25 October 2023 to investigate why the taps in the bathroom were not producing hot water. The notes state the resident said the water was only lukewarm when the immersion was set at off-peak but since the wiring had been changed on the CCU, it had not worked. The contractor confirmed the usage of the boost had caused it to overheat and completed repairs to the immersion heater, tank, stopcock, and bathroom radiator.
The issue with the CCU was referred to the contractor who installed it. However, on 8 November 2023 the resident had to chase the landlord who transferred her through to the contractor. As the landlord was responsible for ensuring the repairs were completed, it ought to have contacted the contractor to determine what the issues were and how the contractor intended to resolve it.
An appointment was made for a contractor to attend on 24 November 2023, but it failed to attend. There is no evidence to explain why, and no evidence of communication with the resident. This was not appropriate. When the support worker raised this with the landlord, she asked for and was given the contact details for the contractor. As above, the landlord ought to have addressed this with the contractor. This would have allowed it to address any concerns and identify any learning to prevent a recurrence. There is no evidence the landlord did this – this was a failure by the landlord.
The landlord’s evidence highlights confusion and challenge as to who was responsible for the repairs, with emails being exchanged between the landlord and its contractors. This demonstrated ineffective repair management by the landlord. At this point, the hot water problem had been ongoing for 5 months. And, while it is not disputed several visits and attempts had been made to repair the hot water problem, the root cause had still not been identified. This prolonged the inconvenience and impact on the resident and her family which the landlord did not acknowledge. As it was aware of the resident’s circumstances, it should have prioritised the repair but there is no evidence the landlord did this. This was unreasonable.
In the stage 1 complaint response, while the landlord apologised and offered compensation for the miscommunication between itself and the contractors. It told the resident the issue would be resolved on 18 December 2023 and offered £50 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience. This offer was not proportionate to what we would expect for a service failure over a 5-month period whereby there had been a continuous impact on the resident.
On 18 December 2023, a contractor attended and found a loose cable on the fuse board. On completion of repairs, the system was working, and it confirmed it had not received any further contact from the resident following the repairs.
On 2 January 2024 a repair was raised to investigate the off-peak water function as it was not working and the resident had to use the boost to get hot water. On 4 January 2024, the contractor told the resident the problem was with the meter, and she needed to contact her supplier. This was appropriate as the landlord was not responsible for the meter.
Despite the diagnosis, the resident continued to report problems and on 11 March 2024 a contractor attended and found the boost was not working as the elements in the emersion had tripped. A follow up appointment was made to replace the element on 27 March 2024. This was appropriate as the landlord was responsible.
The resident escalated her complaint on 19 March 2024. She referred to miscommunication, the ongoing issue, the missed appointments, and the lack of urgency around the repairs.
A Contractor Supervisor attended the property on 27 March 2024 and confirmed:
1. it replaced both side entry immersion heaters that were not working
2. the off-peak should be the main source of hot water
3. there was hot water, but the on-peak element seemed to stop working due to constant use
4. the issue was with the meter, and that the resident had called the supplier
5. it received a request for the report which confirmed the meter problem
6. it sent the resident an email to forward to her supplier (not provided as evidence)
In its final complaint response, the landlord confirmed the problem was with the meter and that it needed to be reported to the supplier. It offered to meet the supplier on site. This was appropriate. It apologised for the missed appointment and confirmed a voucher had been given by the contractor. This was reasonable. It agreed there was miscommunication which delayed the diagnoses, and confirmed £50 had been given as part of the stage 1 response.
The landlord acknowledged the “stress” and apologised for this but said it had not been told of the children’s needs. As per our Spotlight report on knowledge and information management, published in May 2023, when a landlord is made aware of vulnerabilities within a household, we expect the landlord to record the information appropriately. This allows it to prioritise repairs and its decision making. As there is evidence the landlord was told of the children’s vulnerabilities from July 2023, it was a failure by the landlord not to update its systems and provide a service that prioritised the needs of the children.
A contractor confirmed to the landlord it had been asked by the resident in March 2024 for a report to give to her supplier to confirm the problem was a faulty meter. It did not provide this to the landlord until October 2024 when it was sent to the resident. This was not appropriate as it delayed matters further for the resident, who invested time and effort chasing the landlord, while prolonging the distress, inconvenience, the impact on her children and a resolution to the problem.
In acknowledgement of the failures identified, the landlord offered a total of £300 compensation across both stages of the complaint. This was not proportionate to the failures highlighted in this report and did not address the impact on the resident. The landlord confirmed the issue was with the meter, however, did not offer any further support to the resident in terms of contacting the supplier directly and working with them to provide a solution. Further, while it highlighted failures, it did not identify any learning – this was unreasonable as it did not demonstrate how it could prevent a recurrence.
Considering all the circumstances above, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the hot water system. This is because:
1. there was evidence of miscommunication between contractors and the landlord. This led to repeated visits to the property which caused an inconvenience to the resident
2. there was a lack of communication to the resident which meant she had to invest time and effort into contacting the landlord
3. the landlord was told of the vulnerabilities within the household repeatedly but failed to update its system accordingly
4. the landlord did not display any urgency regarding the repairs when told of the children’s vulnerabilities
5. the landlord took too long to establish the problem was with the meter
6. the landlord took too long to provide the electric report requested by the resident’s supplier
7. the landlord failed to offer appropriate redress for the service failures
8. the landlord failed to identify any learning to prevent a recurrence

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the hot water system.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. write a letter of apology to the resident
2. pay the resident £600 compensation for the prolonged distress, time and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delayed diagnosis of the problem and delay in providing the report
3. this is inclusive of the compensation previously offered by the landlord. Therefore, the landlord may deduct from this total any compensation it may already have paid in relation to this complaint
4. the payment should be made directly to the resident and not offset against any debt that may be owed. The landlord must provide us with confirmation of the payment
5. engage with the supplier to discuss the actions and findings to date and agree an action plan to providing a resolution for the problem. A copy of the plan should be shared with us and the resident
6. ensure the system has been updated to reflect the vulnerabilities within the household and provide us and the resident with evidence to confirm this
7. must review the failures highlighted in this report and provide us with confirmation of the learning taken to prevent a recurrence

Recommendations

The landlord should review its process for recognising and recording vulnerability information for resident’s and share the process with us.