Estuary Housing Association Limited (202403709)

Decision
Case ID	202403709
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Estuary Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	20 April 2026

Background

1. In August 2022, a fault with the fire sprinkler in the resident’s property was identified during an annual service. When the next annual service took place in August 2023, the fault remained unresolved as no repairs had been completed. The ongoing delay in completing the repairs led the resident to raise a complaint in February 2024. The repairs were completed in April 2024.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs to a fire sprinkler system.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found the landlord responsible for:
   1. Service failure in its handling of repairs to a fire sprinkler system.
   2. No maladministration in its handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Fire sprinkler repairs

4. There was an unreasonable delay in the landlord completing repairs. The landlord consistently failed to communicate effectively with the resident, demonstrating a lack of effective learning from earlier shortcomings. The landlord also failed to fully follow through on commitments it made during the complaints procedure.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord’s complaint handling was in line with the expectations of its complaints policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

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 provided by a senior member of staff. 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 18 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident a total of £610. This is comprised of the £510 it offered during the complaints process, and a further £100. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 18 May 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
22 February 2024	The resident complained about the delays in repairing the fault with the fire sprinkler system.
6 March 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It explained that an appointment scheduled for 20 February 2024 did not go ahead as the external contractor did not attend due to unforeseen circumstances. It would issue a missed appointment voucher accordingly. The landlord also acknowledged that it should have informed the resident at the time and confirmed it had spoken with the contractor to prevent a recurrence. It also confirmed that the appointment had been rearranged for 7 March 2024.
13 March 2024	The resident escalated his complaint. He said the landlord’s response did not adequately address the delay, or the inconvenience he was caused in chasing the repair.
26 April 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said: further investigations into the fire sprinkler system fault did not take place, despite an annual service in 2022 recommending that this work was required. an annual service in 2023 identified a fault affecting pressure to a sprinkler and that works to install a replacement part were scheduled for 29 April 2024. Its response to addressing this issue was slow. other fire safety precautions operated correctly throughout this period. it awarded £500 for the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident because of the failures and said that a fire risk surveyor would make contact once the works had been completed to ensure the resident was satisfied.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate because he did not feel that the landlord offered an appropriate remedy through its complaints procedure for the distress and inconvenience experienced.

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 landlord’s handling of fire sprinkler system repairs
Finding	Service failure

6. In August 2022, an annual service of the fire sprinkler system (the sprinkler system) identified a fault with the system. The contractor recommended that further investigations be completed. However, the landlord failed to ensure this was done. In August 2023, a subsequent annual service report stated that the sprinkler system was not operating as expected as the previously identified issues remained unresolved.
7. By the time remedial works were completed, it had been around 20 months since the fault with the sprinkler system was first identified. It is unclear why the landlord failed to complete the necessary repairs sooner, but it appropriately acknowledged this failing during the complaints procedure.
8. Between August 2022 and February 2024, the landlord obtained several quotes from its contractor for repairs to the sprinkler system. This included a quote in November 2022 to replace a battery and reprogramme the system panel, and a further quote in July 2023 to replace a faulty water pump and reprogramme the panel. However, there is a lack of an audit trail explaining why these works were not progressed further.
9. Accurate record keeping is essential to enable landlords to meet their obligations, including providing residents with clear information and enabling us to conduct a thorough investigation. In this case, the landlord advised us that it was unable to explain what caused the delays in progressing the works after receiving the quotes, as the staff members involved were no longer employed by itself and could not be contacted. This indicates a failure by the landlord to ensure that records were properly maintained and remained accessible despite staff turnover. As a result of this, the landlord has been unable to account for the delays, and we can therefore only conclude that it unreasonably failed to progress the works at the relevant time, despite its repair and fire safety obligations.
10. The resident has told us that this delay caused significant worry, including an impact on his wife’s anxiety over a prolonged period. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any impact on health. The courts, or an insurer, are best placed to deal with this type of dispute, as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any impact on health. We have therefore not considered this further. We have, though, considered whether the landlord took proportionate steps to put right the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused.
11. As part of its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord confirmed that its contractor missed a planned repair appointment for the system on 20 February 2024. It said this occurred because another job took longer than expected and that it did not proactively notify the resident. This would have inconvenienced the resident. It was appropriate that the landlord provided a missed appointment voucher in line with its compensation policy and rescheduled the appointment for 7 March 2024. We also note that the landlord said it had spoken with the contractor to improve communication in these circumstances, which aligns with our expectation that landlords learn from outcomes.
12. Between March and April 2024:
    1. On 7 March 2024, the contractor attended as scheduled. It replaced the battery and confirmed there was power to the sprinkler system. However, faults remained with the sprinkler system panel and the water pump, so the issue was not resolved.
    2. On 25 March 2024, the contractor provided the landlord with a quote for further works. This was to assess whether the sprinkler system panel and water pump could be repaired or needed replacement. The contractor attended again on 5 April 2024 to progress the investigation.
    3. On 15 April 2024, the contractor confirmed that the water pump, controller, and associated pipework could not be repaired and provided a scope of works to replace them. The works were completed between 28 April 2024 and 1 May 2024, with some delay caused by the water pump needing to be delivered by a supplier.
13. The completion records confirm that the sprinkler system was operating correctly once the works were finished. We welcome that the landlord acknowledged that it had been “very slow” in resolving the problem and committed to discussing “more stringent timescales” with its contractor as part of its stage 2 complaint response, as this further demonstrates learning.
14. Effective communication is important because it can help reduce distress and inconvenience for residents. The evidence shows that, on several occasions between February and April 2024, the resident contacted the landlord to request updates on the progress of the works. However, the landlord did not take a proactive approach to keeping the resident informed about the steps it was taking to resolve the sprinkler system fault. On some occasions, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s contact requests at all. As a result, the resident had to repeatedly chase for information, which was unfair.
15. The landlord also did not proactively engage with the resident to address his fire safety concerns until providing assurances in its stage 2 complaint response. This fell short of our communication expectations, which likely led to further avoidable distress and inconvenience for the resident.
16. Under the Code, landlords are expected to follow through on the commitments they make during the complaints procedure as part of putting things right. In this case, the landlord said that a fire risk surveyor would contact the resident to confirm satisfaction with the sprinkler system repairs. The landlord told us that it called the resident to confirm satisfaction with the works but there was no answer.
17. We have seen no evidence that this contact took place or that it took reasonable steps to ensure that this commitment was successfully fulfilled. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we can only conclude that the landlord did not go far enough to meet this commitment. This reduced the effectiveness of its actions to put things right and may have further undermined the resident’s trust following the earlier shortcomings we have identified.
18. We are aware that shortly after the sprinkler system was repaired, the resident reported a leak which they believed was coming from the sprinkler system. We cannot assess these concerns at this stage because the landlord has not yet had the opportunity to respond. The resident may wish to raise these matters as a new complaint with the landlord if they have not already done so. If they remain dissatisfied after the landlord issues its response, they may bring the matter to us as a new complaint.
19. The landlord awarded the resident £510 during the complaints procedure for distress and inconvenience arising from the identified shortcomings in its handling of the sprinkler system repairs. This includes the £10 missed appointment voucher. The total award was in line with what the landlord’s compensation policy suggests is appropriate for where there was a high impact on the resident due to serious failures by the landlord. It was a proportionate award at the time.
20. However, the compensation did not reflect the landlord’s failure to fully follow through on its commitment for a fire risk surveyor to contact the resident after the works were completed. When deciding what compensation may be appropriate to account for this, we have considered our compensation guidance which sets out our approach to compensation and is published on our website.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

21. The landlord had a published complaints policy that aligned overall with the Code at the time of the resident’s complaint. The policy required it to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and issue stage 1 and stage 2 responses within 10 and 20 working days. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint response within the timeframes set out within its policy.
22. On 13 March 2024, the resident emailed a request to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure. However, the email did not clearly identify the resident or the property to which the complaint related, meaning the landlord was unable to confirm at that point whether the request could be accepted as a stage 2 complaint.
23. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to seek clarification before progressing the complaint, to ensure it met the requirements of its complaints policy. This information was provided on 21 March 2024, after which the landlord accepted the complaint, acknowledged it, and issued its stage 2 response in line with its complaints policy.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

24. The landlord’s records lacked the level of detail we would expect as part of good record keeping. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management highlights the importance of maintaining accurate and accessible records that provide a clear audit trail. The landlord may wish to review its record keeping practices in line with the recommendations set out in our spotlight report.

Communication

25. The landlord’s communication with the resident was often reactive and fell short of expectations around effective communication. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that proactive and tailored communication can reduce distress and minimise the impact of failures. The landlord may wish to review its communication with residents in line with the recommendations set out in our spotlight report.