Estuary Housing Association Limited (202512162)

Back to Top

 

Decision

Case ID

202512162

Decision type

Investigation

Landlord

Estuary Housing Association Limited

Landlord type

Housing Association

Occupancy

Assured Tenancy

Date

6 March 2026

Background

  1. The property is a flat on the 2nd floor of a 3-storey block. The landlord previously completed repairs to address various leaks affecting the resident’s property in 2023 and 2024.

What the complaint is about

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

  1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak.
  2. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Landlord’s handling of reports of a leak

  1. There was no urgency in the landlord’s response to the leak which resulted in long delays. The landlord’s communication and general oversight of repairs was poor.

Landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The stage 1 response failed to consider failings between September 2024 and January 2025 and did not do enough to put things right for the resident.

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

03 April 2026

2

Compensation order

The landlord must provide evidence that it has paid directly to the resident £1,000 compensation. This is made up of:

  • £900 made up of the £250 offered in the stage 2 complaint response, plus an additional £650 for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble incurred by the resident.
  • £100 for the service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

No later than

03 April 2026

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations

The landlord should consider water pressure testing to identify leak sources in similar situations, as raised by its contractor in an email to the landlord on 27 November 2025.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date

What happened

28 January 2025

The resident raised her formal complaint. She said:

  • There was an ongoing leak in her kitchen/living room ceiling which remained unresolved for over 2 years.
  • The leak continued to cause significant damage to her floor, furnishings, and personal belongings.
  • She wanted compensation for the damage, loss of earnings, and distress.

18 February 2025

The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 4 February 2025. It then sent its stage 1 complaint response, where it upheld the complaint. It said:

  • A leak was reported on 2 January 2025 and its contractor attended the same day and said the leak was coming from the balcony above. A follow-on appointment was scheduled for 28 January 2025. However, this was cancelled as the work order was incorrectly assigned to a plumber rather than a roofer.
  • A roofer attended on 11 February 2025 and said the leak was likely from the flat above. However, it was in the process of arranging access to the flat above and would provide an update by 21 February 2025.
  • It acknowledged there had been previous leaks in 2023 and 2024 which had affected her property. However, repairs were carried out to relocate solar panels on the roof in September 2023, and to address a downpipe defect in December 2024.
  • It acknowledged the ceiling was water stained and it would repair the plastering once the leak was resolved.
  • It said damaged personal belongings should be covered by the resident’s home insurance policy.
  • It offered £20 compensation for a previous missed appointment on 19 December 2024.
  • It said it had learnt from the complaint and would use previous reports to inform its approach when similar issues arise.

16 May 2025

After the resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 10 April 2025, the landlord issued its stage 2 response, where it also upheld the complaint. It said:

  • It apologised for the poor communication and lack of updates.
  • It agreed a leak was reported in 2021. But said it believed previous leaks had been resolved, and this was a new leak presenting in the same place
  • A roofing contractor visited in March 2025 and found 2 possible causes for the leak. Following the resident’s comments, it had asked for an alternative contractor to review the recommended work to ensure the issue got resolved.
  • It offered £250 compensation made up of: £100 to delays, £50 for poor customer service, and £100 for inconvenience. But would review the compensation once all works were completed.
  • It reiterated its position in relation to damaged personal belongings.
  • It would monitor the work and ensure the resident was updated fortnightly until the work was completed.

23 May 2025

The resident requested to “formally escalate” the complaint to stage 2 due to the lack of progress, despite already having received a stage 2 response. She said if she did not receive a response she would escalate the complaint to us. The resident contacted us a month later on 25 June 2025.

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.

What we did not consider

  1. The resident told us about the impact the condition of the property had on her health. We cannot determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and her health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord.
  2. The resident said some of her belongings had been damaged by the leak. It is beyond our remit to determine liability for damaged belongings and these matters are usually best suited to be dealt with via an insurance claim or through the courts. It is our role to investigate whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures.
  3. The previous leak issues are noted for context. But there is no evidence of a formal complaint being made until 28 January 2025. We encourage residents to raise complaints in a timely manner, normally within 12 months of issues arising. This is so the landlord can consider them whilst they are still ‘live’ and whilst the evidence is available to properly investigate. Therefore, we will consider events from 19 September 2024 onwards when the resident reported the leak. The end date is 27 November 2025 when the landlord found the cause of the leak.

Complaint

Landlord’s handling of reports of a leak.

Finding

Maladministration
  1. The landlord’s repairs policy (2024) says:
    1. Emergency repairs, which if not undertaken would pose an immediate risk to a resident’s health and safety or to the building’s structural integrity, are to be attended within 24 hours to make safe.
    2. Routine repairs, which do not cause serious inconvenience or an immediate risk to health and safety, are to be attended within 20 working days.
    3. Planned major works are usually completed within 1 year or a longer planned cycle.
  2. The resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord will keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the premises including drains, gutters, the roof, window frames, internal walls and ceilings.
  3. The landlord’s repair records showed a work order raised on 19 September 2024 for an “ongoing issue” of a leak. A landlord contractor attended 4 days later but said it:
    1. Was not a roofing issue.
    2. Required a plumber to attend.

An appointment was booked for 29 October 2024 to investigate the “ongoing leak in the living room.” While the first contractor attended within in line with the landlord’s policy for a routine repair, there was a lack of urgency in the follow-on appointment, which was a failing.

  1. The evidence then showed:
    1. There was no access for the plumber on 29 October 2024 (unclear why).
    2. There was no access for the rescheduled plumber appointment on 12 November 2024 (unclear why).
    3. The appointment was rescheduled for 19 December 2024, another 5 weeks later. And while a plumber attended, the leak was not investigated and only the taps were repaired.
    4. The landlord raised a work order to investigate the leak on 19 December 2024; however, this was cancelled as raised in error (unclear why).
    5. The landlord raised a work order for the leak on 2 January 2025, 2 weeks later. A roofer attended the same day, which was prompt. But raised another work order for a plumber to investigate the leak for 28 January 2025.
    6. The landlord raised another work order for the roofing contractor on 24 January 2025 as the plumbing work order (scheduled for 28 January 2025) was raised in error. However, the evidence suggests roofers had already attended the property on 23 September 2024 and 2 January 2025.
    7. The resident took the day off work on 28 January 2025, but the appointment was cancelled.

The lack of oversight and monitoring of the repairs meant the landlord failed to properly investigate the cause of the leak over a period of over 4 months. This was unreasonable and meant the repairs were not completed within the landlord’s repairs policy timeframe. The resident said she was left with “buckets of water on the floor” when it rained. This led her raise the formal complaint after the cancelled appointment on 28 January 2025.

  1. The landlord raised another work order for roofers to attend the same day of the complaint. It was unclear why the appointment was made for a roofer. As mentioned above, roofers had already visited twice and said a plumber was required. The evidence showed the roofer tried to arrange to visit on 4 and 18 February 2025, however the appointment was booked for 26 February 2025. This was positive a positive step and showed the landlord was taking action to try and address the leak. The landlord then used its complaints process to manage the resident’s expectations in relation to needing to arrange access to both the resident’s property, and the upstairs neighbour.
  2. Following the stage 1 complaint response the evidence showed:
    1. The landlord’s surveyor and a roofing contractor attended on 26 February 2025. Internal landlord notes said the leak was from the balcony decking area above and decking would need to be removed.
    2. The surveyor and roofing contractor visited again on 5 March 2025. Internal emails the following day said “this is… a leak through the rubber membrane [underneath the timber decking of the balcony of the flat above].” The landlord then asked a sub-contractor to conduct leak testing, which was reasonable.
    3. The landlord’s contractor and sub-contractor visited on 19 March 2025 to carry out the leak testing. The report noted:
      1. “Thermal imaging was taken of the ceiling and while the ceiling area was stained… [it was] dry.”
      2. Further work was recommended to the balcony of the property above if the leak returned.
      3. Previous waterproofing work had stopped water ingress for some time.”

The landlord’s contractor emailed the landlord 2 days later and said it had taken “a huge amount of the timber decking up” and found “so many different sources for leaks.” But would need to wait for the sub-contractor’s full report before deciding follow-up action. It was positive the landlord had taken steps to investigate the source of the leak.

  1. It was unclear exactly when the landlord received the leak detection report from the sub-contractor. However, an internal email of 4 April 2025 said it:
    1. Had reviewed the report.
    2. Wanted further detail of whether the leaks were caused by the balcony.

However, there was then no evidence the landlord took any further action until 2 May 2025, which was another month’s delay. The lack of update and action led the resident to escalate the complaint 10 April 2025.

  1. The landlord re-reviewed the leak detection report on 13 May 2025. It then contacted an alternative contractor for a second opinion on what work was required. The landlord has a limited budget and a responsibility to manage its resources effectively. It was therefore reasonable for it to get a second opinion. However, this was now 8 months after the resident reported the leak, which was a delay. The landlord then managed the resident’s expectations regarding the ongoing investigation into the cause of the leak in the stage 2 complaint response, which was reasonable.
  2. The landlord chased the alternative contractor on 20 and 23 May 2025, and 3 June 2025 to arrange a visit. The landlord’s surveyor and alternative contractor visited the property on 2 July 2025, another month later. It:
    1. Found the ceiling to be dry which it noted it had been when it visited in December 2024 and March 2025.
    2. Raised a work order for the lounge ceiling to be decorated.
    3. Said there was “no longer a leak coming from above.”

There was no evidence repairs had been completed at either the resident’s property or property above. It was therefore unclear how the landlord could say there was no longer a leak. This was unreasonable and led to further delays addressing the issue.

  1. The landlord’s contractor attended to decorate the lounge ceiling on 20 August 2025 but needed more time to complete the decorative repairs. Follow-on work was booked for 29 August 2025. The resident took the day off work, but the contractor did not arrive or contact the resident, which caused her further inconvenience. After no further contact and following more heavy rain which caused the ceiling to leak again, the resident contacted us on 3 September 2025. She said she felt “ignored, upset, and depressed.” She also contacted the landlord the following day.
  2. The landlord’s contractor visited a week later on 10 September 2025 and:
    1. Opened the ceiling to inspect but found it was “totally dry.”
    2. Carried out dye tests to be reviewed on 17 September 2025.

This was a positive step to trying to work out the leak source.

  1. The landlord’s contractor attended on 17 September 2025 but found:
    1. The ceiling was dry.
    2. No dye came through from the balcony above.

It requested another inspection to dye test another section of ceiling the next day. It was positive the landlord was proactively trying to find where the leak was coming from.

  1. The resident reported the ceiling leaking again on 4 October 2025. There was no evidence the landlord took any action for 2 days, which was unreasonable. However, it said it would attend as planned on 7 October 2025. When it attended, it again found the “ceiling void was dry.” However, it noted that the resident only reported leaks when there was heavy rain and severe winds. It arranged another contractor to try and replicate the conditions to identify where the leak was coming from. While this was positive, the landlord did not raise the work order until 23 October 2025, another 2 weeks later. The landlord’s sub-contractor attended on 27 November 2025. After a full water test investigation on the windows and balconies, it was found a window of the flat above let water straight into the resident’s flat. The landlord raised a repair for the window promptly the same day, which was positive.
  2. Finding the cause of the leak is not always straightforward and can require significant investigation and the process of elimination. We also acknowledge there will always be delays where:
    1. Section 20 notices may be required.
    2. Scaffolding may be required.
    3. Liaising with other properties within a block is required.
    4. There is a need to wait for contractor/sub-contractor reports.

The evidence showed the landlord took steps to find the cause of the leak in:

  1. February 2025 (removing balcony decking of property above).
  2. March 2025 (leak testing).
  3. July 2025 (thermal imaging).
  4. September 2025 (dye testing).
  5. November 2025 (high-pressure water testing).

These were positive steps.

  1. However, overall, there was lack of urgency in investigating and resolving the leak from the first report in September 2024 onwards. We acknowledge the landlord was not solely responsible for all the delays. And internal landlord emails said there was no heavy rain since it visited in March 2025 and no reports of water penetration for 3 months. But the evidence showed little to no action between:
    1. 24 September 2024 and 29 October 2024 (a month).
    2. 29 October 2024 and 12 November 2024 (2 weeks delay after failed appointment).
    3. 12 November 2024 and 19 December 2024 (5 weeks delay after failed appointment).
    4. 19 December 2024 and 2 January 2025 (2 weeks delay after work order raised on 19 December 2024 was cancelled).
    5. 2 January 2025 and 28 January 2025 (almost 4 weeks – roofer visited but had already been – re-raised work order for plumber).
    6. 5 March 2025 and 19 March 2025 (2 weeks).
    7. 4 April 2025 and 2 May 2025 (1 month with no evidence of any action after reviewing sub-contractor’s leak report up to calling the resident).
    8. 2 May 2025 and 13 May 2025 (1.5 weeks between call updates to the resident).
    9. 10 June 2025 and 2 July 2025 (3 weeks).
    10. 7 July 2025 and 20 August 2025 (6 weeks delay for decorative work).
    11. 4 September 2025 and 10 September 2025 (6 days delay after further report of leak).
    12. 7 October 2025 and 23 October 2025 (2 weeks delay raising a work order).
    13. 23 October 2025 and 27 November 2025 (1 month delay attending to complete water pressure test).

This adds up to a period of almost 10 months, which was a significant delay.

  1. The evidence shows further factors in the repair delays were:
    1. No one taking responsibility for the repair.
    2. A failure to consider prioritising any of the appointments.

The landlord (as the body in a contractual agreement with the resident) is ultimately responsible, regardless of whether it outsources the work contractors. With that in mind, the landlord should have done more to follow up with its contractors and the resident, which was a failing.

  1. The resident has endured inconvenience chasing the issue. There were failed appointments (19 December 2024, 28 January 2025 and 29 August 2025), and she had to clear up water in the propertyfrom leaks in at least September 2024, September 2025, and October 2025. The landlord acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right in its complaint responses. However, it failed to address the detriment to the resident, and the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.There was therefore maladministration. The landlord said it would review the compensation offered to the resident in March, August and October 2025. It has not done so yet. An order of a further £650 compensation has been made in addition to the £250 already offered to reflect the distress and inconvenience incurred between September 2024 and November 2025. This is in line with our remedies guidance.

Complaint

The handling of the complaint

Finding

Service failure
  1. The landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses were sent in line with its policy timescale, which was positive. We also acknowledge the landlord identified learning in its stage 1 response, which was positive.
  2. However, there were several failings:
    1. The landlord’s stage 1 response:
      1. Failed to consider the failings between September 2024 and January 2025.
      2. Said it would keep the resident updated. However, it did not do so, which it acknowledged in the stage 2 response.
    2. It was unclear if/when the resident was sent an acknowledgement of the escalation to stage 2. This may have contributed to the confusion which led the resident to ask to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 23 May 2025, despite the fact a stage 2 response had already been sent.
    3. The landlord’s stage 2 response identified 4 actions it would take. One of these actions was to “ensure the area surveyor updates [the resident] every 2 weeks until the works have been completed.” The evidence showed the contact was generally made monthly, rather than every 2 weeks as promised.
  3. Overall, while the landlord’s complaint responses were sent in a timely manner. There were several failings. A finding of service failure is made, and an order of £100 compensation is made to reflect any inconvenience caused.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

  1. The landlord’s record keeping was of a reasonable standard.

Communication

  1. The landlord’s overall communication with the resident was poor between September 2024 and May 2025. We acknowledge that its communication improved, albeit not as much as the landlord had promised, after the stage 2 complaint.