Eastlight Community Homes Limited (202406063)

Decision
Case ID	202406063
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Eastlight Community Homes Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	30 January 2026

Background

1. The resident is being represented by her father in supporting her complaint. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her complaint. She felt that its complaint responses had not complied with legislation, its policies and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The resident has told us that she did not want us to consider the substantive complaint issue she raised with her landlord. As such we are unable to refer to that issue and have only considered its handling of her complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord’s complaint responses were in line with its complaints policy. It provided the resident with an explanation of its decision and how the outcome she sought could be achieved. However, its stage 2 acknowledgement was not within the timeframe of its complaints policy. There were also record keeping failures when it sought extensions to its investigation at both stages.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 27 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £25 compensation for its complaint handling failures.	No later than 27 February 2026

 

Recommendation

Our recommendation is not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow this.

Our recommendation
It is recommended that the landlord arranges complaint handling training for its staff to ensure that its complaints policy is followed.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
9 January 2024	The resident’s father raised a complaint on behalf of the resident with the landlord. He set out the reasons for doing so and what outcome the resident wanted.
1 March 2024	The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response. It said: It did not uphold her complaint. It advised her of the reason why it could not provide her with the outcome she sought. It wanted to meet with her to discuss the substantive issue and explain how it could support her moving forward.
6 March 2024	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said: It had not acknowledged her complaint within the timeframe set out in its complaints policy. It had not said who had advised it that it could not provide the outcome she sought. It had not carried out a proper investigation. She had provided it with permission for her father to represent her on 12 December 2022. She then provided written consent for this in December 2022. As it had discussions about her tenancy with her father before written consent it had breached data protection laws. It had delayed the complaint process due to the permission issue. She wanted assurance that it had taken steps to improve its record keeping. Confirmation that its complaints team had discussed the substantive issue with all relevant staff. Its website did not set out clear information for residents who may also be affected by the substantive issue she raised.
7 May 2024	The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response. It said: Its stage 1 response was based on the advice of subject matter experts. It was satisfied it discussed the issue with the relevant staff. It was satisfied its stage 1 response was correct. It explained the process for achieving the outcome she sought, but that was something it could not provide her with. It had not breached data protection law, as she had not given consent to discuss specific areas of her tenancy with her father. It could not provide her with the outcome she sought but explained how that could be achieved. It would review the information on its website. It did not uphold her complaint and set out the reasons for this.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 15 May 2024. She said the landlord: Did not comply with its legal obligations and codes of practice. Had failed to keep her records up to date. Did not apply its own policy and/or procedures. Its stage 1 investigation was not investigated independently. It unreasonably delayed dealing with the matter. It had behaved unfairly, unreasonably or incompetently. It had treated her in a heavy handed, unsympathetic or inappropriate manner

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

What we have considered

5. The resident has said she only wants us to investigate the landlord’s complaint handling. As we do not consider the reason she referred her complaint to us is tightly linked with the substantive issue she raised with her landlord, we have investigated its handling of her complaint.
6. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 2 working days. It will send its response within 10 working days of its acknowledgement at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2.
7. The resident has provided evidence that shows she contacted the landlord by text message on 12 December 2023. She said she gave it permission for it to be in “third party contact” with her father. The landlord’s records show that it told her on 14 December 2022 that she needed to sign and return an authorisation form to add her father as a representative. However, there is no record that she returned this form to the landlord.
8. The landlord’s evidence shows it contacted the resident’s father on 15 January 2024 and said he was not a permitted representative for the resident. The resident’s father disputed this and said he had provided this in December 2022. It is unclear if the resident allowing third party contact was sufficient for the landlord to have agreed he could be the resident’s representative. However, its records show it received verbal permission to add her father as a representative on 6 February 2024. It sent its stage 1 acknowledgement on 7 February 2024. This was reasonable given the representation issues and in line with the timeframe of its complaint’s policy.
9. The landlord sent its stage 2 acknowledgement 8 working days after the resident escalated her complaint. This was unreasonable and a failure to follow its complaints policy timeframe.
10. The landlord’s records show that on 22 February 2024 it agreed an extension to its stage 1 investigation with the resident. It would provide its response by 1 March 2024, which it did. This was reasonable and in line with its complaints policy that says it will agree with residents an extension of no more than 10 working days. However, there is no record that it formally confirmed this with the resident. This was a record keeping failure.
11. The landlord’s evidence shows that on 15 April 2024 it agreed with the resident an extension to its stage 2 investigation. However, its records do not show the date it extended its investigation to or that it formally confirmed this with the resident. This was a record keeping failure.
12. The explanations in its complaint responses were in line with its complaints policy. It said it did not uphold the resident’s complaint, explained its decision and how the outcome the resident sought could be achieved. This was reasonable.
13. There is no evidence that shows the landlord handled the resident’s complaint in a heavy handed, unsympathetic or inappropriate manner.
14. There is no evidence that shows the landlord behaved unfairly, unreasonably or incompetently in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
15. There is no evidence that shows the landlord did not complete its stage 1 investigation independently.
16. The landlord’s complaint responses did not recognise or acknowledge the failures we have identified in its complaint handling. It failed to provide the resident a remedy for these. With consideration to the circumstances of the case, and with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for minor failures we have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £25 compensation. We have also recommended that the landlord arranges complaint handling training for its staff.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

17. We have found record keeping failures by the landlord in our investigation. It should assess its internal recording procedures against the recommendations of our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management. It should also review its staff training to ensure its staff understand the importance of maintaining accurate and comprehensive records.

Communication

18. The landlord’s communication with the resident during its complaints process could have been more effective. There is no record that shows it formally notified the resident of the extension of its investigation at either stage.