Ekaya Housing Association Limited (202428266)

Background

1. The resident is an assured tenant of a ground floor 2-bedroom flat. She has complained about the time taken for the landlord to repair her toilet which had a leak and did not flush. She noted the contractor which attended gave inaccurate information to the landlord and that the landlord did not check whether her toilet was in fact repaired and working. The landlord agreed to replace the toilet and carry out related works in the bathroom. However, while the toilet is now working, the parties agreed that the contractor did not leave the bathroom in an acceptable condition. The resident is not satisfied with the landlord’s offer of compensation and its offer for her to make good the condition of the bathroom with a private contractor.

What the complaint is about

2. The resident’s complaint is about:
   1. the landlord’s handling of a repair to her toilet, including the time taken and the accuracy of the contractor’s reports.
   2. the landlord’s handling of associated bathroom repairs, in particular, the standard of workmanship.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. The landlord offered reasonable redress for its failings in its handling of the repair to the toilet that satisfactorily resolved the complaint.
5. There was service failure by the landlord in its handling of associated bathroom repairs, in particular, the standard of workmanship.
6. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

7. We found that:
   1. The landlord offered reasonable redress for its delay in completing repairs to the toilet.
   2. The bathroom works took longer than anticipated and were not completed to an acceptable standard.
   3. The landlord did not offer compensation specifically for the bathroom works. Its offer for the resident to carry out remedial works herself was arbitrary.
   4. The landlord did not significantly delay in responding to the complaint.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

 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.

8. The resident’s tenancy agreement reiterated the landlord’s statutory repair obligation to “keep in good repair and working order installation for sanitation including basins, sinks, baths, toilets, flushing systems and waste pipes”. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it should complete emergency repairs within 24 hours and attend to urgent repairs within 5 working days. Following the report of 22 December 2023, contractor A attended that day, within the timeframe for emergency repairs. Contractor A diagnosed that the diaphragm and syphon had deteriorated, and a new syphon was required. Contractor A reported they carried out a temporary repair and made the toilet safe; however, the resident complained they had not carried out any works.
9. A subcontractor attended on 3 January 2024. Again, the parties have different accounts of the visit. Contractor A reported they had rectified the flush and repaired the syphon, although the toilet still needed to be replaced. The resident complained they did not carry out a repair but informed her she would need a new toilet, so the landlord would be contacting her. The landlord in its complaint responses stated it had decided it would replace the toilet. However, it did not advise the resident of this at the time so the works would be understood by the resident as being outstanding / ongoing . Additionally, it did not plan to replace the toilet immediately, but during the next financial year. Consequently, it failed to manage the resident’s expectations on how it intended to resolve her repair request.
10. Ultimately, the landlord did not plan to replace the toilet until at least 3 months after the contractor A attending. The landlord missed an opportunity to confirm with the resident that the toilet was working prior to her complaint. Moreover, contractor A stated that it had replaced the syphon. The landlord missed an opportunity to check with contractor A why the toilet still needed replacing and how urgently.
11. After the resident complained, the landlord brought forward the toilet replacement. Another contractor, contractor B, replaced the toilet on 13 February 2024 and also renewed the surrounding panelling and flooring. This was 54 days after the resident’s initial repair request of 22 December 2023.

Having accepted it delayed in repairing the toilet, it was appropriate that the landlord offer redress to the resident. It initially offered £178.28 in the stage 2 response calculated at 54 days x £3.30. While the landlord did not say how it arrived at £3.30, we note this amounted to 15% of the resident’s daily rent at the time. (Her rent and service charge for 2023-24 totalled £154.05). The landlord’s compensation policy states where there is a complete loss of the bathroom it may offer 15% of the rent. The resident did not have a complete loss of the bathroom but an outstanding repair to the toilet. The landlord also offered an amount to reimburse extra water usage which the resident did not challenge. It offered an amount for inconvenience and distress in line with the discretion allowed for in its compensation policy. It also, at stage 3, raised the overall award to £450 less £25 for the handling of a Subject Access Request. It also offered a goodwill offer of £75. Taken altogether, the landlord offered reasonable redress  for the delay in completing repairs to the toilet.

12. Redress should be prior to when we accept a complaint for investigation and on the landlord’s own initiative. In this case, the landlord has offered compensation for its handling of the toilet repair. However, it appears to have been prompted to reconsider its position following the resident contacting it after the stage 2 response to explain her situation and request a higher compensation award. At the time, the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) stated that 2 stage complaint procedures were ideal as the complaint process would not be unduly long. Now, a 2 stage complaints procedure is mandatory. Nonetheless, as the landlord made the offer for its handling of toilet repairs within its complaints procedure at the time, it offered reasonable redress.
13. The landlord incorrectly stated in the stage 2 response that it was compensating for 35 days, when it had already accepted a delay of 54 days. The landlord also advised that the increased award at stage 3 also reflected inconvenience from the bathroom works; however, it did not break down the award. The landlord, therefore, while offering reasonable redress, lacked clarity in communicating the award.

14. In the stage 2 response of 5 April 2024, the landlord advised it would arrange an inspection of contractor B’s work. This was reasonable as it would allow the landlord to ascertain the standard of the works. However, the landlord only agreed the inspection in response to the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s repairs policy does not specify when the landlord will post inspect completed works.
15. When escalating her complaint to stage 2, the resident raised concerns about the quality of the bathroom works. She also showed photographs of the workmanship to the stage 3 panel at a meeting on 12 June 2024. The landlord inspected on 20 June 2024. Its inspection report detailed poor workmanship to the new toilet, boxing, floor tiling, and decorations. It also noted poor workmanship to a wash hand basin (which needed to removed and reinstalled) and to plastering in the hallway.
16. In the stage 3 response, the panel agreed for the resident to use her own contractor to make good her bathroom. This was pragmatic as the use of residents’ contractors is outside of the landlord’s repair procedure. It advised that it would offer £1,500 towards the cost. It did not explain how it arrived at this amount which consequently was arbitrary. It was unreasonable that it did not consider other factors to arrive at its offer. This included listing the required works and referencing the price under its schedule of works and/or how considering much it paid contractor B. It also missed an opportunity to invite the resident to provide quotes from her contractor(s).
17. The panel also accepted there was poor communication that led to the bathroom works taking longer than anticipated. The landlord had advised the resident works would take one and a half days but, in the end, they took 4 days. This was in part due to the landlord not advising contractor B they needed to replace rotten floorboards.
18. In summary, the parties accept the bathroom works were of poor quality and took longer than anticipated. While it exercised its discretion by agreeing for the resident to use her own contractor to make good the works, its offer of recompense was arbitrary. It is also not clear how much compensation the landlord offered for the poor bathroom works as its offer did not separate this issue. For these reasons, there was service failure.

19. At the time the resident submitted her complaint, the landlord operated a 3 stage complaints procedure. Its procedure said it would respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days andsend stage 2 complaint responses within 20 working days. At both stages, if it could not respond within the required timeframes, it would advise the resident and respond within a further 10 working days. Its stage 3 complaint process involved the complaint being heard by a complaint panel. Its policy said the panel would take place within 30 working days of receipt of the stage 3 complaint. The resident would be sent the outcome of the panel findings and any recommendations within 30 working days of the panel meeting.
20. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint within the required timeframe. It took 37 working days, after receipt, to respond to the stage 2 complaint, outside the required timeframe. However, the stage 2 response noted that resident agreed an extension so the landlord could complete its investigation. This was appropriate.
21. The stage 2 panel hearing was held 30 days after receipt of the resident’s complaint in line with the policy. The stage 3 response was sent 32 working days later.
22. In summary, there were no significant delays in the landlord’s complaint handling at stage 1 and 3. It agreed an extension to respond to the complaint at stage 2. The Ombudsman notes further that the landlord offered to discuss the resident’s complaint with her at stages 2 and 3. It sought to address specific points and questions that the resident raised.
23. As previously stated, it was not until stage 3 that the landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of toilet repairs. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord has since changed its complaints procedure. It now operates a 2 stage complaints procedure that is compliant with our current Code. The resident also complained to the landlord about its handling of her request to see information from her property file. However, she did not bring this complaint to us for investigation.

Learning

24. It is positive that the landlord has improve its complaint handling, in particular implementing a shorter 2 stage process in line with the Code.
25. It is evident that the landlord kept a record of repairs with its contractors. However, it can take further steps to ensure that the contractors have completed all repairs to a satisfactory standard and in a timely manner. These shortcomings have been addressed in our recommendations.
26. The landlord did not proactively communicate with the resident about when it would replace her toilet. It did not relay to contractor B full details of the works required. These shortcomings have been addressed in our recommendations.