From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Christian Action (Enfield) Housing Association Limited (202316097)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316097

Christian Action (Enfield) Housing Association Limited

18 March 2025

 

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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
    1. request for a stock condition survey
    2. request for bathroom repairs
    3. report of a leak
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord since 2009. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord holds no records of vulnerabilities for the resident. At the start of the tenancy, it noted she had difficulty using stairs.
  2. On 7 September 2022, the resident emailed the landlord saying that it had advised her earlier in the year that it would carry out a stock condition survey of her property. On 20 February 2023, the resident chased an update on the stock condition survey. On 28 February 2023, the landlord surveyed the resident’s bathroom. On 22 March 2023, the landlord advised the resident that her bathroom was in good condition, and it would chase its surveyor to see why the stock condition survey did not take place.
  3. On 19 April 2023, the resident raised a complaint. She was unhappy that the landlord would not replace her bathroom and unhappy that it had not carried out a survey of the property since 2010. She also said that the landlord surveyor told her that her toilet and taps required upgrading. On 28 April 2023, the resident raised her complaint again.
  4. On 8 June 2023, the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response, it upheld the complaint. It visited the property on the same day and said it would arrange to replace the toilet cistern and 2 sets of taps. It offered £50 compensation as a gesture of goodwill.
  5. On 12 June 2023, the resident escalated her complaint. She was unhappy that the landlord had previously told her that she would be getting a survey of her property and a new bathroom. However, it did not carry out a survey and the landlord told her that she does not need a new bathroom. She sent evidence of current damage from another broken pipe, but the repair remained outstanding.
  6. On 27 June 2023, the landlord provided another stage 1 complaint response. It upheld the complaint. It said that it was unable to contact her in 2022 to complete a stock condition survey. As a resolution to the complaint, it would complete bathroom repairs and repair the leak. It offered £200 for the inconvenience caused the by delay in repairs.
  7. On 10 July 2023, the resident escalated her complaint. She said that she had previously requested for the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 but was ignored. She said she had been waiting for the issues to be resolved. She expressed frustration and dissatisfaction with the handling of her complaint and asked for the landlord to escalate her complaint.
  8. On 26 July 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It upheld her complaint. It was unable to identify why it had not carried out a stock condition survey of her property and it should have addressed this when the resident raised her initial complaint. As a resolution to the complaint, it would arrange the survey. With regards to her complaint about the bathroom works and the leak it would arrange to assess and repair any outstanding issues.

Events after the internal complaint procedure 

  1. The landlord carried out a stock condition survey on 4 September 2023. It raised repair works for downpipes and soil pipes on 12 September 2023.
  2. On 26 September 2023, the resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She reported that she had injured herself because of the landlord’s failure to repair a leak. She was unhappy that the landlord had delayed in carrying out a stock condition survey. It had recently carried out a survey and found no issues with the bathroom. The survey was carried out by landlord staff, but the resident wanted an independent survey. She was unhappy with the repairs that the landlord completed in the bathroom. As a resolution to the complaint, she wanted an independent survey of the property, the leak repaired, bathroom repairs completed, and compensation for stress and injury caused.
  3. The landlord completed external works to repair the leak on 2 October 2023 and on 18 October 2023 the landlord completed internal works making good the damage from the leak. On 9 November 2023, it repaired an issue with the shower installation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident reported that the landlord’s delay in repairing a leak caused her injury. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more usually dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a stock condition survey

  1. It is not disputed that the landlord failed to appropriately carry out a stock condition survey of the property. When a landlord has accepted a failing, it is the role of the Ombudsman to consider if redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In its final complaint response, it was unable to ascertain why the survey did not take place. As a resolution to the complaint, it raised an order to carry out a survey and offered compensation for inconvenience caused. This was a reasonable resolution.
  2. It is noted that the resident disputed the outcome of the survey because it was the landlord staff that carried out the survey. However, it is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors.
  3. The Ombudsman finds that there was reasonable redress with the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a stock condition survey. This is because it completed the survey and offered compensation for inconvenience, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion put things right for the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for bathroom repairs

  1. The landlord’s reactive repairs policy explains that it has three levels of prioritisation for repairs. For emergency repairs these have a priority of being made safe within 24 hours, for urgent repairs these have a priority for repairs of within five working days. For routine repairs the timescales are within 20 working days
  2. When the resident raised a complaint, she said that the surveyor noted on 28 February 2023 that she required an upgrade to her toilet and taps. We cannot establish what was agreed as the surveyor did not raise an order to carry out this work. However, the landlord carried out a further survey on 8 June 2023 and completed the works on 24 July 2023. In its complaint response it acknowledged the delay and offered compensation. These were reasonable actions to put things right for the resident.
  3. The Ombudsman finds that there was reasonable redress with the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for bathroom repairs. When the resident raised a complaint, it surveyed the bathroom, carried out repairs, and offered compensation which in the Ombudsman’s opinion put things right for the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak

  1. Between 26 April 2023 and 3 May 2023, the resident reported a leak from the flat upstairs on 3 occasions. She reported that a pipe was broken above her windows and doors and dirty water was spilling onto the windows and pathway to her garden when her neighbour used her bath, washing machine, or washed dishes. She asked for the landlord to treat the repair request as urgent. There is no evidence that the landlord logged this repair or acknowledged the resident’s emails. This was inappropriate.
  2. On 8 June 2023, after the landlord surveyed the property, the resident emailed the surveyor and attached images of the leak. She highlighted that she reported the leak on 26 April 2023 and after numerous emails and calls, a plumber attended on 11 May 2023, but no repairs were carried out. On the same date, the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response but failed to acknowledge the resident’s report of a leak. This was inappropriate. Although the leak was not part of the original complaint, the landlord should have acknowledged and progressed the resident’s repair.
  3. The landlord reviewed the resident’s images on 31 August 2023 and noted, “the failing waste pipe and rainwater downpipe, which on inspection shouldn’t be too difficult to resolve”. It said that its contractor should clean the back doorstep and wash down the mould and mildew both internally above the garden door as well as on the external walls. And inspect the extractor fan to ensure sound fitting and rectify the gap above the bathroom window which had been caused by the water penetration. Based on the evidence, this is the first action the landlord took to address the resident’s repair. This was 4 months after the initial repair request. This was inappropriate.
  4. Throughout that 4-month period, the resident continued to express frustration and chase the repair request. The evidence shows that the resident emailed the landlord 7 times. It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord only addressed the issue because the leak progressed into her bathroom and because the resident raised a complaint. The landlord’s response to the resident’s initial report and further chasers was unreasonable, and caused time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience to the resident.
  5. The landlord’s repair records show that it completed the repair on 2 October 2023. This was 110 working days after the initial report. This was inappropriate and significantly beyond the landlord’s repair response timeframes. When the landlord reviewed the complaint, it failed to acknowledge or offer any remedy for the delay. This was unreasonable in the circumstances.
  6. The Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak. The landlord significantly delayed in addressing the repair and its communication with the resident was poor. It failed to appropriately acknowledge its failures or put things right for the resident through its complaints process. In line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, it is ordered for the landlord to pay £300 compensation to reflect the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience it caused to the resident.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by us, our staff, or those acting on our behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.”
  2. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also states that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy references the same timescales as the Code.
  3. On 19 April 2023, the resident emailed the complaints team and stated, “I am extremely disappointed that this is the stance you have taken as this was not what you said to me at all during our very brief meeting”. It is clear that this was an expression of dissatisfaction and should have been treated as a complaint. The landlord failed to register this as a complaint. This was inappropriate and prolonged the complaint process.
  4. On 28 April 2023, the resident asked to lodge a formal complaint. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 2 May 2023. It failed to respond until 13 working days later on 22 May 2023. This was inappropriate because it did not align with its complaints policy.
  5. On 22 May 2023, the landlord advised the resident that it wanted to survey her property and as such it would extend its complaint response.
  6. On 2 June 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord and requested for her complaint to be escalated because the landlord failed to survey her property as agreed. It apologised and arranged a survey and provided its stage 2 complaint response on 8 June 2023. This was 33 working days since the resident raised her complaint. This was inappropriate because it did not align with its complaints policy. The landlord caused time and trouble to the resident in escalating her complaint.
  7. On 12 June 2023, the resident escalated her complaint. The landlord provided a further stage 1 complaint response on 27 June 2023. This was inappropriate and not in line with the Code. The landlord should have provided its stage 2 complaint response at this point. This failure caused further time and trouble and frustration to the resident in navigating the complaint process.
  8. On 10 July 2023, the resident escalated her complaint again because the landlord had not completed repairs that it said it would in both stage 1 complaint responses. The landlord acknowledged the complaint escalation on 12 July 2023 and provided its stage 2 complaint response 10 working days later on 26 July 2023. This was an appropriate time frame to respond to the complaint escalation.
  9. The landlord failed to identify and register a complaint initially. It delayed in investigating the issue and it delayed in providing its stage 1 complaint response. It provided 2 stage 1 complaint responses and placed unreasonable barriers to complaint escalation. In its final complaint response, it should have apologised to the resident for its complaint handling failures and provided compensation.
  10. The Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. Despite the numerous complaint handling failures identified in this report, the landlord failed to identify or acknowledge any complaint handling failures in its complaint investigation. The resident reported feeling ignored by the landlord. In line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, it is ordered for the landlord to pay £200 compensation to reflect the time, trouble, and frustration it caused to the resident by the complaint handling failure identified in this report.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress, in response to the resident’s request for a stock survey, prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress, in response to the resident’s request for bathroom repairs, prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. It is ordered that the landlord apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified in this report.
  2. It is ordered for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £500, compromising:
    1. £300 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused in its response to the resident’s report of a leak
    2. £200 for time, trouble, and frustration caused in its complaint handling
  3. The landlord should provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.