Estuary Housing Association Limited (202311016)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311016

Estuary Housing Association Limited

31 July 2024

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 handling of:
1. A repair to the kitchen window.
2. The associated formal complaint.

Background

The resident had an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord, which is a housing association, from April 2021. The property is a 3 bedroom house.
On 16 December 2022 the resident reported a repair to the kitchen window. The landlord’s contractor attended on 2 occasions in December 2022. The window handle was replaced on the first visit and on the second visit the operative reported that he was able to get the window to operate correctly but it needed to order parts. The contractor attended again on 5 April 2023 to overhaul the window mechanism. On completion of the work the resident believed the window had been successfully repaired.
The following day the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord that the repair had not resolved the issues and there was a gap in the window frame and the key could not secure the window. He said that it was a minor repair that took the landlord 4 months to complete and he was unhappy with the service.
On 22 June 2023 the landlord provided it stage 1 response. It confirmed that its contractor would attend on 27 June 2023 to review the window and ensure that works were completed to its standard. It acknowledged the time it had taken to complete repair and said it was partly due to supply issues for materials. It upheld the complaint and offered £20 for the resident’s time and trouble pursuing the matter. It noted that it had reminded its contractors to remain in contact with residents when parts or replacements were required and consider alternative options when there are delays, as was in the resident’s case.
The contractor attended on 27 June 2023 when the resident advised that he was not happy with the mechanism fitted in April 2023 and he wanted the original mechanism fitted. The contractor said the resident refused his proposal to complete a repair that day.
In the resident’s stage 2 complaint of 6 July 2023 he said the landlord’s response was delayed, he did not consider £20 to be sufficient, and the window was still not repaired. He referred to the contractor’s visit on 27 June 2023 and said that the contractor proposed to repair the window with a non-standard part. He noted that the same repair was attempted in April 2023 and had failed. He wanted the landlord to either fix the window with the correct part, replace it, or sell him the property as he had offered to purchase it.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 11 August 2023, it noted that a surveyor’s report from 3 August 2023 said the window frame keep (a security mechanism that fits into the windows) appeared to be fitted incorrectly and was larger than it needed to be. The contractor had informed it that the part was no longer available, but this was incorrect as it was a standard part that should be available. It would encourage its contractor to ensure the correct part was fitted so the window could close correctly. It upheld the complaint as the repair remained unresolved.
The contractor attended to complete the repairs on 2 October 2023 and reported that the window mechanism was adjusted and all was locking and opening correctly. The resident reported that the window was again not closing properly on 19 October 2023 and the contractor returned on 30 October 2023. It is not apparent that any works were completed on the visit and the contractor referred the repair back to the landlord.
On 17 November 2023 the resident confirmed to the landlord that he would be refusing access to its contractors due to his dissatisfaction with the service and he asked for the window to be replaced instead. The resident ended his tenancy in March 2024.

Assessment and findings

Repair to kitchen window

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places an obligation on the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. This includes the window and its components. The landlord’s repair policy states that it will complete routine repairs no later than 20 working days from the report.
In this case, the landlord acknowledged in its response that it failed to complete the repair within the timeframe set out in its policy. It explained that the delay was partly due to supply issues for materials and we have seen evidence that confirms this. Its contractor noted that the supplier was closed over the Christmas period which meant there was a delay in the part being ordered after the operative noted one was required during the visit on 23 December 2022.
As well as supply issues we have seen that the delay was also due to missed appointments by the contractor on 27 February and 14 March 2023. The landlord’s procedure for statutory and discretionary payments states that, where an appointment is not kept, it will issue a £10 voucher for each missed appointment. There is no evidence of the landlord offering this when the missed appointments happened or in its response to the complaint. As they contributed to the delay in the completion of the repair and the inconvenience to the resident it was unreasonable that the landlord did not offer redress for them in accordance with its procedure.
The repair completed on 5 April 2023 did not successfully address the fault with the window and the resident reported this the following day. It then took 12 weeks for another operative to attend. The time taken to arrange the appointment was the result of the landlord’s failure to record the resident’s complaint when it received it on the 6 April 2023. Once it recorded the complaint on 5 May 2023 it took reasonable steps to investigate the matter with its contractor and asked them to reattend and investigate the fault which prompted the visit which took place on 27 June 2023.
When the contractor attended that day they reported that the resident was not happy with the repair that was completed which the operative described was a replacement mechanism secured with additional catches to lock the window. The operative reported that the resident refused the work that he proposed on the day and wanted the original mechanism fitted to the window.
The landlord arranged for its surveyor to investigate the issue on 3 August 2023. Arranging the inspection was a reasonable action for it to take at that stage. Aside from the delay in it attending to fit the part after December 2023 its contractor attended on 2 occasions to repair the window and could not do so. The surveyor’s inspection was beneficial in order for the landlord to agree a way forward on what it was going to do to resolve the repair.
Following the surveyor’s report, the landlord said in its response that it believed the contractor’s advice about the unavailability of the required part was incorrect. It agreed that it would pursue its contractor to ensure the correct part was fitted although did not provide a timeframe as to when the resident could expect this to happen. As the repair had been outstanding for 8 months at the time the landlord made this agreement it was not appropriate that it did not provide a timeframe the resident could expect for the work to be completed.
Further, the landlord did not manage the resident’s expectations about the repair that its contractor could do to the window before it agreed to ensure its contractor would fit the part that was required. It was made aware prior to its response to the complaint in August 2023 that its contractor could not source the original part. It was also aware that the repair carried out on 5 April 2023 was not successful and the resident thereafter, refused the contractor’s proposed repair on 27 June 2023.
In the circumstances it would have been beneficial for the landlord to first get clarification from its contractor about the repair it was able to do and relay this to the resident, before it sent the contractor to attempt the repair on a third and fourth occasion in October 2023. Had the landlord done so it could have better managed the resident’s expectations about the repair that would be carried out, addressed any concerns he had about the proposed repair ahead of the visits and possibly avoided the need for the repeated visits in October 2023.
After the contractor’s fourth visit on 31 October 2023, 10 months after the window was reported, the landlord contacted a window supplier to ask whether replacement parts could be sourced. The supplier confirmed that it was unable to source the part for the window as the manufacturer had ceased trading. The landlord’s contact with the supplier was prompted by a suggestion from the resident that the supplier could source the part. It was fair for the landlord to explore the resident’s suggestion when it was made.
The report from the visit on 2 October 2023 suggests that the mechanism was adjusted as opposed to replaced, as the landlord instructed. Within 2 weeks of the visit the resident reported again that the window was not closing properly and the landlord instructed its contractor to attend again on 30 October 2023.
Before the contractor attended the landlord noted to it that the mechanism that it fitted was not compatible with the window keeps. It asked that its contractor ensured when it attended that the right parts were sourced and to let it know if this was not possible so that it could manage the resident’s expectations. As noted above, had the landlord confirmed the contractor’s intended method of repair before the visits on 2 and 30 October 2023 both the resident and the landlord would have been clear on what to expect on the day of the appointment.
It was apparent from the feedback from the visit on 27 June 2023 that the resident was not happy with the repairs that the contractor was proposing. The landlord was also made aware that its contractor could not source the original part that the resident wanted the mechanism to be replaced with.
It is a shortcoming that, before sending the contractor back out for a third visit on 2 October 2023, the landlord did not establish with its contractor what repair it was prepared to do, confirm this to the resident, and potentially arrange a joint visit with the surveyor sooner than 31 October 2023. By that date there had been 2 additional visits after the landlord’s agreement that it would ensure the repair would be completed with the correct part which, to the resident’s understanding, was the original part.
The Ombudsman’s role here is not to assess the quality of the repairs but to consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the quality of the repair carried out. It was important for the landlord to have sought clarity from the contractor about the repair it was prepared to do and share this with the resident before arranging 2 further visits for the repair in October 2023. Had the landlord done so it may have been able to come to an agreement on the repair it could do, oversee the repair by way of a joint inspection and avoided the matter reaching an impasse as it did after the fourth visit on 30 October 2023.
After the resident’s correspondence to the landlord on 17 November 2023, confirming that he was not willing to have the contractor return to the property, this Service cannot see that the landlord responded. Evidence that the landlord has provided shows that the repair was outstanding when the resident ended his tenancy and was resolved after he left, which demonstrates that it was possible for the window to be repaired without the need for a replacement.
Had the landlord worked effectively with its contractor to clarify the required repair after the 2 unsuccessful attempts in April and June 2023, it would have been in a position to better manage the resident’s expectations on the method of repair that would be used to address the window. In the event that it did disclose the method of repair to the resident it would have been able to address any concern he had about the proposed repair before the contractor attended a third and fourth time in October 2023.
While the landlord appropriately acknowledged that it did not complete the repair within a reasonable time, it did not offer redress for the missed appointments which contributed to the delay and caused additional inconvenience to the resident.
Furthermore the landlord did not work collaboratively with its contractor at an earlier opportunity following its response so that it could manage the resident’s expectations about the way in which the repair would be completed. The result of this was that it sent the contractor back to the property on a third and fourth occasion without first detailing to the resident the exact repair that its contractor was going to do. The landlord is entitled to rely on the feedback from its contractor. It is therefore a reasonable expectation that it sought clarity on the method of repair that its contractor intended to use when it attended to the repair again and shared this with the resident before the third and fourth appointments were arranged.
As a result of there not being a clear understanding amongst the parties, the contractor continued to attend after the landlord’s final response without the part because they could not source it. By the time the landlord confirmed to the resident on 31 October 2023 that the original part could not be sourced, the repair had been outstanding for 10 months and there had been 4 attempts to address the faulty mechanism. This ultimately had an impact on the resident’s confidence in the contractor’s ability to do the repair as he eventually refused it access.
The landlord’s offer of £20 was in recognition of the resident’s time and trouble and inconvenience. Its statutory and discretionary payments procedure suggests that where there has been a service failure that it finds could have been easily resolved, it can offer compensation from £10. While the landlord’s offer was within the range in its procedure for the extent of the service failure found, the sum is not considered proportionate taking into account all the circumstances of the case. The reason being that:
1. There were 2 missed appointments by its contractor which it has not offered redress for in accordance with its policy.
2. It received advice from its contractor about the availability of the parts and failed to work with it to better manage the resident’s expectations about the method of repair its contractor could complete without the original parts.
3. When the matter reached an impasse the landlord failed to engage with the resident further on the matter to agree a way forward. As the window repair was the landlord’s repair responsibility and had been outstanding for 10 months by that point, this was inappropriate.
Service failure has been found in the landlord’s handling of the repair overall. It appropriately recognised that there was a significant delay in resolving the repair and also acknowledged that the repair that was completed did not effectively resolve the issues. It offered compensation in recognition of the delay and took steps, albeit delayed, to address the concerns he had raised about the repair by way of inspection. However after 2 attempts to complete the repair the landlord did not manage the resident’s expectations by confirming the method of repair that its contractor would apply to address the window, despite it being made aware that the contractor could not source the original part.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance notes that, where we have found service failure we would consider compensation from £50 proportionate. Given the above we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation, in addition to the £20 offered in its response to the complaint.

Complaint handling

There was a delay in the landlord’s responses at both stages of its complaints process. In accordance with its procedure the landlord is expected to provide a response at stage 1 within 10 working days of it recording the complaint.
In the resident’s case it took the landlord 52 working days to respond to the complaint at stage 1. This was partly due to the fact that it did not record the complaint until 5 May 2023 when the resident submitted it again.
When it recorded the complaint it agreed to provide the response by 22 May 2023 and said that if it could not meet this deadline it would notify the resident. This is line with its procedure. However the landlord did not provide its response by the given date and the resident had to chase it on 5 June 2023 for an update.
At stage 2 the landlord’s response was issued 27 days after it was received. However in accordance with its procedure, it notified the resident that there would be a delay in its response and it issued its response within the extension timeframe.
When the landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint it sent the resident a £10 voucher to acknowledge the time it had taken to record the complaint. This was reasonable redress for the failure to record the complaint initially. However it did not then considered redress for the delay in the provision of the response thereafter and this was unreasonable. Service failure has therefore been found in the landlord’s complaints handling.
Taking the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance into consideration an order is made for the landlord to pay the resident £50 in recognition of the impact of its failure to notify the resident of the further delay in its stage 1 response. This is in addition to the £10 voucher that it sent to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of:
1. The repair to the kitchen window.
2. The associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

It is ordered that, within 4 weeks, the landlord is to arrange the payment of £120 compensation to the resident. This comprises:
1. £20 offered in its response to the complaint (if not already paid).
2. £50 in recognition of the impact of its handling of the repair.
3. £50 in recognition of the impact of its complaint handling.
The additional £100 compensation ordered by this Service should be paid directly to the resident.