Estuary Housing Association Limited (202205214)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205214

Estuary Housing Association Limited

7 December 2023

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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to:
  1. Plumbing – Water tank/boiler, shower, taps and drainage;
  2. Roof leak and ceiling damage;
  3. Window;
  4. Garage door.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident lives in a 3-bedroom end terrace house with a garage on a fixed term tenancy that began in July 2019.
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the tenancy agreement places obligations on the landlord to maintain the property, in particular in relation to the building structure and exterior.
The landlord’s repair and maintenance policy aims to ensure it is accessible to residents and that it sets the standards to ensure its homes are safe and well maintained, they meet the decent homes standard and the Regulator of Social Housing consumer standards for homes. It prioritises repairs as follows:
1. Emergency –(within normal working hours) to be commenced no later than 4 hours and completed or made safe within 24 hours.
2. Out of hours emergencies – to commence no later than 4 hours and completed or made safe within 24 hours.
3. Routine – no later than 20 working days.
The landlord’s complaint procedure aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond in full at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days.

Summary of events

Scope of Investigation

The resident complained to the landlord about pre-existing repairs that were required at his property. He highlighted work that had been outstanding for over 1 year.It is within this context that the landlord’s actions in response to the complaint are considered.
For ease of reference, the complaint handling timeline for this case in general, is as follows; the resident made a complaint to the landlord on 31 March 2022. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day and responded to the resident on 20 May 2022. The resident escalated his complaint to the landlord on 20 May 2022. The landlord acknowledged his complaint the same day and sent its full stage 2 complaint response on 8 June 2022.

Plumbing – water tank/boiler, shower, taps and drainage

The landlord’s repairs history showed 2 repairs were ordered on 20 January 2020 for the following:
1. Check the water tank. It recorded a completion date of 4 February 2020against its target date of17 February 2020.
2. Investigate the leaking shower. It recorded a completion date of 23 January 2020 against its target date of17 February 2020.
Two further repair orders were then raised by the landlord on 11 June 2020 as follows:
1. Refix the ground floor wash hand basin. It recorded a completion date of 12 June 2020 against its target date of 9 July 2020.
2. Unblock the toilet in the ensuite. It recorded a completion date of 15 June 2020 against its target of 9 July 2020.
The resident complained to the landlord on 31 March 2022 about a number of outstanding repairs that he said had been ongoing for over a year. He made reference to the following plumbing related issues:
1. The ensuite tap was broken;
2. The shower had come off the rail;
3. A drainage issue in the bathroom on the middle floor of the property;
4. A water leak from the tank;
5. An overflow pipe that was leaking causing fungus on the outside paving.
On 8 April 2022, the landlord raised a repair for the bath taps and to repair a temperature fault and a drip on the water tank. It scheduled an appointment for 11 April 2022 for the taps and temperature fault and recorded this work as completed as well completing a repair to the ensuite tap on the same date. It then recorded another appointment date of 25 April 2022 to complete work to the overflow and water tank.
The landlord’s records showed further repairs were carried out on the completion dates it recorded below:
1. Shower to ensuite bathroom – 13 April 2022.
2. Shower screen door – 16 May 2022.
3. Gas boiler breakdown – 13 May 2022.
During its investigation into the complaint, the landlord identified it attended the property to carry out repairs to the water tank in February 2020. Its records showed it carried out work to “remove old safety combination valve, fitted new valve and repressurised expansion vessel”. It identified at the time of the repair in 2020 that follow on work was required, however, the landlord recorded in its notes it “could not see any follow-on work so it could only assume it was never repaired”.
The landlord responded to the complaint as part of stage one of its process on 20 May 2022. It acknowledged that two items from a surveyor inspection report had not been dealt with. The landlord did not provide the date of the inspection, however, in the records provided to this Service, the landlord made reference to an inspection on 27 April 2022. It is unclear if this was the inspection date it was referring to. The two items it referred to were:
1. Mixer taps to the bathroom – The landlord apologised it did not follow through with the report after an inspection and it said the repair had now been carried out. It is unclear if the repair to the mixer taps was the same issue the resident referred to of the ensuite tap in his complaint.
2. Drainage issues – the landlord was satisfied that the repair had been completed.
The landlord offered £130 compensation to the resident for the overall service failures it had identified for the plumbing delays and failures it had identified with other repairs.
The landlord raised a repair for no heat and hot water on 25 May 2022 with a completion date recorded of 27 May 2022.
As part of considering the resident’s complaint at stage 2, the landlord increased the compensation offer to £250. This was in recognition of delays and potential additional water costs due to the issue with leaking taps.

Roof leak and ceiling damage

The landlord’s repairs history showed an order raised on 20 January 2020 to inspect the kitchen and a bedroom ceiling. It recorded a completion date of 28 January 2020 against its target date for completion of 17 February 2020. The landlord has not provided a record of its assessment from the inspection.
The landlord did not record any further works orders in relation to the roof or ceilings until 21 December 2020. Between 21 December 2020 and 21 October 2021, the landlord’s repair history records showed approximately 6 repairs/appointments in relation to discoloured ceilings. During this 10-month period, some work was carried out to the ceilings and the requirement to conduct further follow on work was noted. The landlord recorded that it attempted to make appointments on at least 5 occasions. On one of its scheduled appointments its staff were late in attending. When it arrived, the landlord was told it was not convenient for the resident to have the work carried out. On other occasions, the landlord recorded that the resident could not have the work carried out on the appointed slots due to unforeseen circumstances. The landlord’s records showed that it eventually cancelled the repair in October 2021 due to the number of “excessive” visits to the property.
Within the resident’s complaint to the landlord on 31 March 2022 he referred to the ceiling being discoloured in the toilet, living room, hall and bedroom.
On 13 May 2022, the landlord’s repair history showed a repair to the front porch roof noting water was penetrating the lounge. It recorded the completion date of 19 May 2022. The landlord also recorded another repair to the damaged living room ceiling on the 13 May 2022. The completion date it recorded was 22 August 2022.
When the landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 20 May 2022 it acknowledged that the water damage from the front apex roof had not been rectified. However, the repairs record showed this was completed on 19 May 2022 and no additional notes were recorded, so it is unclear of the issue it was referring to. The landlord apologised that it had not attended and it said it would carry out the work to the ceiling on 10 June 2022 and it agreed to complete a roof inspection at the same time. The landlord offered the resident £130compensation within its stage 1 complaint response.
The landlord’s records showed it spoke to the resident on 20 May 2022 about his dissatisfaction with the level of compensation the landlord had offered him. The resident indicated to the landlord that they were seeking a figure of £10,000 which the landlord said was unrealistic. The landlord agreed to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of its procedure and acknowledged this on the same day. As part of its stage 2 response, the landlord offered £250 at stage 2 for the failures it had previously identified together with other repair failures that were relevant to the complaint.
After the landlord’s final complaint response on 28 November 2022, the landlord raised another order to make good the ceilings and although a target completion date of 25 December 2022 was given, the landlord’s records showed that ‘no access’ was recorded and no completion date was provided.

Window

The landlord recorded a repair to a cracked UPVC double glazed kitchen window on 28 March 2022 and the completion date given was 25 July 2022.
When the resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 31 March 2022, he referred to this window being cracked. Within the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 20 May 2022, it acknowledged the resident’s concerns that the window had not been repaired despite 2 visits by landlord staff. The landlord said an order for replacement glass had been delayed due to an administrative error and it apologised for this. The landlord gave a new date for the repair of 29 May 2022.
The resident escalated his complaint on 20 May 2022 as he wanted a larger amount of compensation. In the landlords response dated 8 June 2022 it acknowledged that the kitchen window had still not been repaired. It apologised for the delay and offered the resident £250 compensation for the failure to repair the window as part of the other repair failures that were raised as part of the complaint.
On 12 July 2022, the landlord’s records showed that the window repair was booked for 18 July 2022. It recorded a completion date of 25 July 2022.

Garage door

On 28 March 2022 the landlord recorded the garage door was not closing. It made an appointment to attend on 29 March 2022.
The resident complained to the landlord on 31 March 2022 about the garage door. He was concerned it was insecure and he did not feel safe. The landlord replied in its stage 1 response that the appointment to repair the garage door was cancelled and it could not explain why. The landlord offered a ‘missed appointment’ of £10 and rebooked the repair appointment for 25 April 2022.
The landlord stated a surveyor had visited the residents property (date not provided). The surveyor stated that materials were ordered to repair the garage door and that the repair was extensive. It explained to the resident that the delay had been caused by an issue with the materials and the repair work had been rebooked for week commencing 23 May 2022. It is unclear of the actual completion date of works as a landlord record refers to a completion date of 4 November 2022 for “inspection of garage door”.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 31 March 2022 about a number of outstanding repairs that he said had been ongoing for over a year. The landlord recorded that it acknowledged the resident’s complaint the same day and it advised him that it would respond by 14 April 2022.
The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint until 20 May 2022 as part of stage 1 of its complaint process. It identified some failures with its repair work and its delay in response to the complaint.The landlord offered £20 compensation to the resident for the delayed complaint response and said itwould be paid onto the resident’s rent account. It said it would learn from the complaint and manage its emails better to minimise any future administration errors.
The same day, the landlord noted the resident’s dissatisfaction with the level of compensation it had offered and it escalated his complaint to stage 2 of its complaints procedure. In addition to informing the landlord of the repairs required at the property, he told the landlord he did not feel safe in his home as the garage was insecure. The resident explained he had limited use of the facilities in the property and was restricted to only use the downstairs bathroom because there was a drainage issue in the middle floor bathroom which had caused additional cleaning and inconvenience. He went onto explain other defects such as the discoloured ceilings caused embarrassment when he had visitors. The resident outlined he was concerned that his water bill had increased due to leaks from taps and that his service provider advised him they could not recalculate his bill until the leak had been stopped. The landlord sent the resident an acknowledgement letter the same day and said it would respond by 8 June 2022.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 8 June 2022. It apologised for the repair failures it had identified and increased its overall compensation offer to the resident to £250. However, it did not explain the breakdown of the compensation in relation to the complaint handling failure element and therefore it is unclear if its final compensation offer was £20 or whether it had factored this into the £250 it had offered as part of its response.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are to:
1. Be fair;
2. Put things right; and
3. Learn from outcomes.

These principles will be applied throughout this assessment.

Plumbing – Water tank/boiler, shower, taps and drainage

It was not until the resident made a complaint in March 2022, that he made the landlord aware he had been waiting over a year for various repairs that included the ensuite tap, the shower, a drainage issue, a leak on the water tank and an overflow repair.
The landlord attended the property and fixed the bath tap, a temperature fault and conducted a further repair to a tap in the ensuite bathroom. It made these repairs within 1 week of them being reported and in line with the timescales in its repairs policy. The landlord returned to the property and carried out repairs to the external overflow, a shower door and the boiler all within the timescales stated in its repairs policy.
When the landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint, in May 2022, it recognised there had been a delay torepair mixer taps and a drainage issueidentified by a surveyor that had not beenaddressed. The landlord has not provided any records of the surveyor’s assessment and therefore a determination cannot be made in relation to why the delay occurred. It was clear the situation had an impact on the resident, he was concerned about a rise in his water bill and that the drainage issue had caused him inconvenience by limiting use of the middle floor bathroom. The landlord recognisedfailures and appropriately apologisedthat it did not initially follow through with the entirety of the surveyors report. It was, however, satisfied that repairs were complete, but offered the resident compensation of £130 for the overall failures that were identified.
It is of concern the landlord did not recognise its failure to follow up on work to the water tank in the interim period between conducting repairs in 2020 and receiving the resident’s complaint. The resident also had a duty to report any concerns to the landlord, however, there is no information as to whether the resident was aware that issues in relation to the water tank remained, or what the required works were to the water tank.
The landlord’s records indicate it attempted to conduct other repairs at the property, notably to repair damaged ceilings,however, whatever thefollow-on work was that was first identified in 2020, it was not conducted until approximately 2 years later.While the reasons for this delay are not obvious, it is reasonable to proportion ineffective record keeping by the landlord and a breakdown in communication between the parties as major factors in the failure. This failure, coupled with the resident potentially incurring higher water chargesas a result of pending repairs over this period,amounts to maladministration by the landlord.

Roof leak and ceiling damage

The landlord raised a repair order for the ceiling in December 2020 against a completion date of March 2021. However, it is unclear if any work was completed, as the landlord’s records show it continued to attend to conduct repairs in May 2021, June 2021, August 2021 and then September 2021. The landlord recorded what appeared to be difficulty to access the property, recording that it was inconvenient for the resident to have the work completed throughout these months. Eventually the landlord cancelled the order, stating it had made numerous attempts to carry out the work during the period.
In March 2022, when the resident raised a complaint at stage 1, he confirmed that repairs to the ceiling remained outstanding. When the landlord responded to the complaint in May 2022, it apologised that it did not attend to the water damage from the apex roof and the work was to be completed in June 2022. However, the repair was not completed until August 2022. The landlord acknowledged the delay in its service provision and offered compensation to the resident.
After the landlord’s final complaint process, (November 2022), another order was placed for the ceilings and while a ‘no access’ was recorded in its logs, the landlord has not provided a date upon which the work was completed.
In summary, there appeared to be 2 separate issues with the ceiling repairs. Those the resident had reported from previous roof leaks and the one in relation to the ‘apex’ roof repairs. Some of the ceiling repairs extended over a prolonged period of nearly 3 years. The landlord has demonstrated that it did carry out some work and it made various attempts to carry out the follow-on repairs. However, the landlord’s evidence refers to a number of occasions when it was inconvenient for the resident to have the work completed which no doubt added to the delayed time period. Even so, the landlord could have been more proactive in ensuring the work was completed in a timely manner, following up with the resident on the number of inconvenient appointments and agreeing a suitable action plan in order to reach a resolution rather than cancelling the work without any follow up.
Although the landlord did acknowledge the delayed work, it has not explained how it assessed its failure or confirmed the amount of compensation it offered for this part of the complaint. Instead, it offered the resident £250 for the full extent of failures within the overall complaint. However, as an individual failing the Ombudsman considers £200 to be a suitable level of compensation for the landlord’s failures in relation to this element of complaint, in recognition that there had been delays from both the landlord and resident, but with emphasis on the landlord’s failure to proactively resolve the issues.

Window

The landlord raised a repair in March 2022 for a crack in the kitchen window and a completion date of the end of July 2022 was shown in its records. A 4-month delay in this situation is unreasonable and falls outside of the landlord’s committed repair policy timeframe.
Within the landlord’s final complaint response, it apologised for not fixing the kitchen window and offered compensation for the overall failures of £250. The landlord has not made it clear what level of compensation it has apportioned to this element of failure. In the opinion of this Service, it is reasonable for the landlord to offer the resident £50 compensation for its failure given the window was not known to be insecure and the fact the landlord had already attempted to put things right for the resident.

Garage door

The landlord first raised a repair order for the garage door at the end of March 2022. Within the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of May 2022, it confirmed that a surveyor had inspected the garage and materials were ordered noting the repair to be extensive. It explained that delays were caused by the non-availability of materials, and the required repairs were rebooked for the end of May 2022, however, it appears the required work was not completed until November 2022.
Considering that it appeared there were issues opening/closing the garage door and the resident had security concerns, it was inappropriate that the landlord delayed excessively over an8 month period to carry out repairs to the garage door.During this delayed period, the landlord has not evidenced it acknowledged the resident’s concerns, or that it considered other appropriate ways to reach a speedier resolution, such as temporary repairs, outsourcing the work, resourcing materials from other suppliers or whether it would be more feasible to fit a new door.Given the resident was paying for the use of the garage that he could not securely use,this no doubt would have caused the resident inconvenience and added to his frustrations of not beingable to enjoy the full use of the garage.
Although the landlord recognised its failure within its complaint responses and offered compensation of £250 as part of its overall failures, the excessive delays and resulting impact on the resident’s ability to enjoy full use of a secure garage and the distress and inconvenience this would have caused him, amounts to maladministration buy the landlord.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord quickly acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint the same day as it was received and advised the resident of its appropriate timescale for responding. However, it was unreasonable that it did not respond on time without updating the resident and agreeing a mutual date for its new response. The landlord unreasonably delayed in its response by nearly 2 months. However, during this period it is acknowledged that the landlord did begin and continue to action repairs in response to the complaint.
Within the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, it appropriately acknowledged its delay and offered the resident £20 that it said it would pay onto the rent account. Given that the stage 1 complaint should have been responded to within 10 working days and it appeared there was no update given to the resident during the delay, the level of redress the landlord offered the resident falls short of what the Ombudsman considers to be reasonable for a 6-week delay.
When the resident requested that the landlord escalate his complaint, it did so promptly and acknowledged the complaint the same day giving an appropriate timescale for its response. The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint on time, apologised for the repair failures it had identified and increased its compensation offer to £250. It also demonstrated that it was prepared to learn from the complaint by identifying a service improvement to manage its emails better so that administration errors were minimised.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the plumbing – water tank/boiler, shower, taps and drainage.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the roof leak and ceiling damage.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the window repair.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the garage door.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint and level of compensation it offered the resident.

Reasons

The landlord failed to provide adequate records of its repairs and monitor them to completion. After the complaint, it did ensure repairs were actioned in a timely manner.However, although the landlord identified that it had not raised ‘follow on’ work for the water tank/overflow repair, it failed to address this within its complaint response to the resident.
The landlord delayed in carrying out ceiling repairs at the resident’s home. However, there were mitigating circumstances in relation to the landlord’s reasoning for these delays and it demonstrated that it made numerous attempts to carry out the work, but it did not demonstrate that it was proactive in monitoring the repair to satisfy itself that the repairs were fully completed in a timely manner. While the landlord acknowledged its failures it was not transparent in how it reached its decision of compensation for this element of failure. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot be confident it put things right for the resident.
The landlord delayed in carrying out reglazing to the kitchen window. Although it acknowledged its failure and offered some compensation for its overall failures, it was not transparent in its decision of compensation for this element of failure. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot be confident it put things right for the resident.
The landlord delayed excessively in carrying out work to the garage door.
The landlord delayed in responding to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. Although it recognised its delay and offered the resident compensation, the level it offered fell short of what the Ombudsman considers to be reasonable for the 6-week delay.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should write to the resident and apologise for the service failures identified within this report.
Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £700 (including the £250 it has already offered the resident if it has not already done so) as follows:
1. £250 plumbing – water tank/boiler, shower, taps and drainage;
2. £200 Roof leak and ceiling repairs;
3. £50 window;
4. £150 Garage door;
5. £50 the complaint handling.

The compensation should be paid to the resident and not paid onto the rent account.

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should arrange an inspection of the property and confirm to the resident and this Service if any work remains outstanding to the plumbing, roof leak/ceiling repairs and window. This should include its action plan including timescales to complete any such work.
Within 8 weeks of this report, the landlord should consider the failings identified within this report and review how it will improve its future repair service, specifically its associated record keeping. Reference should be made to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge Information and Management (KIM) dated May 2023.The landlord should provide this Service with its actions to demonstrate how it intends to improve its repair service.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with the orders within the timescales set out above.