Ekaya Housing Association Limited (202227743)

Decision
Case ID	202227743
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Ekaya Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	3 August 2026

Background

1. The resident lives with her teenage son who has learning and mobility difficulties. In 2022 she reported recurrences of a pest infestation and noise disturbance from her neighbour. The landlord then received recommendations for adaptions to the bathroom, which included some repairs. The resident subsequently reported the bath broke causing water damage to her kitchen ceiling and, separately, her front door was damaged. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of these and that some issues remain unresolved.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Adaptations and repairs to a bathroom.
   2. Pest infestations.
   3. Repairs to a front door.
   4. Noise disturbance from a neighbour.
   5. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
4. There was reasonable redress given for its handling of repairs to a front door.
5. We found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the noise nuisance.
6. The complaints about the landlord’s handling of adaptations and repairs to a bathroom and pest infestations are outside our jurisdiction.

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

 

 

Summary of reasons

7. The resident has or had the opportunity to raise her concerns about the landlord’s handling of the bathroom adaptations and repairs, and the recurring pest infestation in her counterclaim to the landlord’s possession proceedings at court. As such, these issues are not ones we may investigate under the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme.
8. The landlord delayed in replacing the front door and this caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience. It however acknowledged its failures and took appropriate steps to put the impact right.
9. The landlord largely followed its antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy by taking actions that were proportionate to the recurring noise issues the resident reported.
10. The standard of the landlord’s complaint responses were generally good, but it failed to meet its published timescales and took no actions to put this right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 31 August 2026
2	Compensation The landlord must pay £100 directly to the resident for the time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures. It must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 31 August 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should pay the resident the £453 it awarded for the impact of its failure in the handling of the front door, if it has not already done so. It was on this basis that a finding of reasonable redress was made.
The landlord should consider our recommendation in our spotlight report on dealing with noise complaints to have a separate defined noise policy or process for staff to follow distinct from its ASB policy.
The landlord should contact the resident about the front door to ask whether she is still experiencing difficulties closing it, and if yes, carry out repairs.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
1 March 2023	The resident complained that the landlord’s contractors tried to install the wrong front door in mid-February 2023. She said she was left in a vulnerable position without a front door temporarily and incurred costs to reinstall the original. The resident also referred to repair issues, including an unstable bath. She said she was unhappy with how the landlord had dealt with her reports of noise from her upstairs neighbour using a washing machine at night.
28 April 2023	In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it said it: Was sorry for the delayed response but it had explained in updates that it was necessary for a better outcome to await the door replacement, which was on 13 April 2023. Acknowledged and apologised that the final door choice was not passed onto the manufacturer. Was not given the opportunity to find a solution but would reimburse the £153 she spent on reinstalling the original door. Had acted on the resident’s reports of noise from her neighbour from, including speaking with them and sending warning letters. The landlord advised it had inspected for repairs and would deal with these within its repair service standards. It also offered mediation with the resident’s neighbour and explained why eviction was not proportionate based on the evidence. It awarded compensation of £100 (£253 in total) for the front door issue.
30 July 2023	The resident asked to escalate her complaint because she said the front door did not close properly and the amount of compensation was not proportionate to the impact (including that she was unable to see family because of needing to be at home). She also said it had done nothing to investigate a report that the neighbour was overcrowded. The resident added that adaptations recommended by an occupational therapist (OT) were still outstanding, there was an ongoing pest problem, and unresolved repairs. She asked for more compensation.
22 October 2023	After initially declining to escalate the complaint because of the time it took, the landlord responded at stage 2. It agreed with its stage 1 findings regarding the front door. The landlord confirmed that it had since agreed an action plan to address the noise issue and reoffered mediation. It advised it had received the OT report but had not had opportunity to consider it fully.  It said it was unlikely to be able to complete some recommendations (such as rehousing her).. It also said it had treated for pests. It said it had contacted her about outstanding repairs (including the front door) and she advised she was not available until October 2023. The landlord awarded £500 compensation, advised her to contact the repairs team to arrange repairs, and signposted to rehousing options.
30 October 2023	The resident escalated her complaint to the landlord’s stage 3 panel review. She said she was dissatisfied that the repairs (including her front door) were outstanding, the pest issue was unresolved because she believed it needed to treat the whole building. Also she said the neighbour was continuing to “violate” the tenancy agreement.
25 January 2024	In its stage 3 response, the panel concluded that the previous responses to the front door and ASB issues were reasonable. It though found a failing in the management of the pest issue in not treating the whole building sooner. It also concluded that, although the resident’s lack of availability until 2024 (advised in late November 2023) caused some delays to repairs, it acknowledged it should have completed a feasibility study for the OT recommendations much sooner. In resolution, the landlord apologised and awarded compensation totalling £1,303, made up of: £453 for the impact arising from the front door issue. £300 for the distress caused by failings in the pest treatment. £400 for the impact of delays in assessing the adaptations. £150 for the overall distress and inconvenience caused.   Separately the landlord sent a letter asking the resident to arrange an inspection for repairs and stated this was needed urgently to progress any outstanding issues.
After the complaints process ended	The resident reported in mid-June 2024 that she had not been able to sleep in her bedroom since February 2024 because of a leak and noise from her neighbour. She advised that she would stop paying rent in the hope the landlord would take legal action so her case could be heard. The landlord subsequently initiated proceedings and a court hearing took place in late 2025. This was adjourned to allow the resident the chance to submit her counterclaim. The resident made a second complaint on 30 January 2026 about unresolved leaks, which she copied to the court as part of the “ongoing legal proceedings and counterclaim.”
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint because, in her view,  the landlord had not taken accountability of all its failings. She recently told us the damage caused by the bath leak was unresolved. The resident said she is seeking an independent investigation from the Ombudsman and more compensation.

 

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	Adaptations and repairs to the bathroom / Pest infestations
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

11. We may not investigate matters where a resident has had (or will have) the chance to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings. In this case, the landlord advised us it had started possession proceedings against the resident. A court hearing took place on 10 November 2025 which it said this was adjourned for 21 days to allow the resident to present a counterclaim for disrepair.
12. We have seen the resident sent her evidence and witness statement to the court on 26 November 2025. In this she referenced the bathroom adaptations and repairs (including to the kitchen ceiling) and recurring pest problem. She also referred to these issues in her second complaint in January 2026, which she advised was linked to her counterclaim. Although we do not know the status of the legal proceedings, the evidence shows the resident did raise these repair issues as part of those proceedings. For this reason, will not investigate her complaints about the bathroom adaptations and repairs (including the kitchen ceiling), or about the pest infestation.

 

 

 

Complaint	Front door repair
Finding	Reasonable redress

13. Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the resident’s building and installations, including doors. Its repair policy states that it aims to complete routine repairs, once identified, within 20 working days. It does not have a timescale for planned maintenance works, which the policy states involve the resident being given a choice of materials to use.
14. On 15 and 17 August 2022 the resident reported that the front door was swollen and cracked, making it more difficult to use. The landlord informed the resident on 17 August 2022 its contractor would assess the door at a scheduled appointment to inspect other issues she had reported previously. Records show this appointment went ahead on 23 August 2022 (within 6 working days of the resident’s report). It decided the door needed to be replaced.
15. The landlord raised a works order in early September 2022 and gave the resident a choice of design for the door. It is uncontested that at some point the resident told the landlord she had changed her choice and the landlord confirmed it had told the manufacturer. The resident made it clear that it was important for the door to include glass. However, the landlord’s contractor attended on 7 February 2023 and fitted the wrong style door with no glass. The resident was unhappy. An email from the contractors to the landlord indicates that the resident removed the new door (and damaged it) and threatened to call the police. It therefore advised its operatives to collect the new door and leave site.
16. The landlord’s surveyor attended on 7 February 2023 and offered to complete a repair. However ,the resident arranged and paid for the original door to be adjusted so it could be fitted (with the original lock) into the new frame. This work was completed on 7 February 2023 at about 7pm. The invoice for the work confirmed this was only a temporary measure and she required a new door and frame to be fitted.
17. The landlord reordered the door. This meant the resident had to wait for it to be manufactured (during which time she said she felt less secure) and accommodate another appointment, which went ahead on 13 April 2023.
18. Overall, it took around 8 months from the resident reporting that the front door needed be to repaired. There were some valid reasons for this including the need to have it specially made. There was a delay in arranging an appointment to install the door in January 2023. The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 January 2023 reminding her of her obligations under the tenancy agreement to allow access for repairs. However, at the time this was sent, the resident was waiting for the landlord to confirm whether the door was glazed. The only delay that the resident was responsible for was a 2-week period from 18 January 2023 when she asked for a break from further appointments for the rest of the month due to the impact on her son. The error with an initial incorrect  door being installed also caused an avoidable delay of 2 months.
19. We find the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint reasonably. It acknowledged its failings, the impact of them, and took steps to put things right. This included apologising for the delays in installing the door, its communication error, and the difficulty this caused between her and the contractor. The landlord’s response that it was not given the opportunity to offer a different solution was fair. It was therefore in goodwill for the landlord to reimburse the resident’s proven expense, because its compensation policy states it may reimburse costs if found to be caused by its service failure.
20. In the circumstances, it was appropriate for the landlord to award compensation for the resulting distress and inconvenience. The amount it awarded of £300 was above the maximum (£150) its compensation policy states it may pay for high impacts arising from a serious failing. It is also within the range (£100-£600) our remedies guidance recommends for cases where there has been a negative impact, but it is not expected to be lasting.
21. After it installed the front door, in her escalation request from late July 2023 the resident reported that it was difficult to close. It was appropriate for the landlord to consider if there was a repair issue and it offered to inspect the door several times and in its complaint responses. There is no evidence the resident arranged or agreed to an appointment. We recognise there were times she was unavailable, such as the latter quarter of 2023, but we cannot hold the landlord responsible for this time. We have recommended the landlord follows up with the resident about this.

 

 

 

Complaint	Noise reports
Finding	No maladministration

22. The landlord is required under the terms of its tenancy agreement to investigate reports of behaviour that may cause nuisance to others and to take proportionate action where appropriate. Its ASB policy also makes clear that noise arising from everyday domestic living, such as footsteps, does not generally constitute ASB. However, the policy acknowledges that minor or low‑level issues can have a cumulative impact when experienced over a prolonged period. It states that it will tailor its approach to the case and will take actions it deems “proportionate and reasonable”. It will focus on taking non-legal actions to stop the behaviour.
23. The records show that on 5 January 2022, the resident reported a recurrence of a noise issues which she believed to be coming from one of the flats above her home. She said the noise from above was affecting both her own and her son’s sleep. Though not described by the resident, it was apparent that the noise disturbance could be considered ASB because it had happened before and during unsociable hours.
24. In response, the landlord took a series of proportionate and timely steps in line with the nature of the allegations and the impact the resident described. These included speaking with neighbours, issuing a warning letter (sent the day after the resident’s report), and engaging with the resident about the information required to progress any formal ASB case. It also later asked the neighbour to consider installing carpets to reduce the noise. This was reasonable because we have seen no evidence it could compel the neighbour to change their flooring under the tenancy agreement.
25. The resident reported that the neighbour was using a washing machine late at night in mid July 2022. Under the ASB policy the landlord was required to investigate the report. The landlord made reference to having sent a warning letter about this in a communication to the resident from late 2022. However, we saw no record of this in those provided. We cannot say if this omission was due to the landlord not keeping or providing relevant records, or because it did not respond to the report. Either way it is a failing the landlord cannot demonstrate it acted on this report. We saw no records showing the resident reported the washing machine noise again until 3 months later. So, we have seen no evidence of a significant impact.
26. The landlord did take some appropriate actions when the resident reported noise from the washing machine in her initial complaint in March 2023. It sent a warning letter on the same day. The resident also submitted diary sheets in late March 2023 describing 3 occasions over a 6-week period that she had heard banging or a washing machine noise from above. The landlord offered mediation to both parties as a constructive way to help resolve the recurring problem. It was reasonable to take a different approach given that the noise disturbance, though intermittent, was still occurring. The landlord also set clear expectations regarding the level of evidence needed before more serious enforcement action, such as legal proceedings or eviction, could be considered. And encouraged the resident to keep reporting and completing diary sheets.
27. When the resident subsequently reported concerns about overcrowding in September 2022, the landlord investigated and confirmed that additional family members were living at the property above. This was potentially a breach of the tenancy agreement. The landlord responded in line with its ASB policy in issuing a formal warning to the neighbour notifying them that it was considering taking enforcement action. This was proportionate. Eviction is a last resort where all other methods have not been successful, or the ASB is significant.
28. In response to the resident’s escalation request the landlord spoke with the neighbour who advised there was no family staying with them. It also confirmed the neighbour was open to meeting with the resident to discuss the situation and how it was affecting her, which the resident declined.
29. In the stage 2 response the landlord advised it had agreed an action plan to address the ongoing noise disturbance. This included that the neighbour had agreed to sign an acceptable behaviour contract (ABC) agreeing to reduce noise at unsociable hours. Given that the neighbour was cooperating with the landlord, these were reasonable actions to take. The ABC also represented an escalation in the actions the landlord was taking. It also appropriately advised the resident in its complaint responses to continue to complete and submit diary sheets if the behaviour continued. Because it needed substantial evidence to consider taking legal action.
30. Overall, we find that the landlord’s actions were reasonable and proportionate to the reports it received. It responded in accordance with its policy, took steps to address the issues raised, and engaged with both parties to try to reduce the impact of the noise on the resident.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

31. The landlord had a 3 stage complaints process in place at the time. Some of its timescales and principles aligned with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in place at the time, which then permitted a 3-stage process. It would acknowledge complaints and escalations within 3 working days (instead of 5 working days encouraged by the Code). Like under the Code, it would then respond within 10 working days at stage 1 and (if escalated in time) 20 working days at stage 2. Unless it had caused to request an extension. At stage 3, it would aim to complete its review within 30 working days.
32. The resident complained on 1 March 2023 and the landlord acknowledged the complaint 7 working days later. In this it said it needed to extend the timescale to 24 March 2023. The resident then chased up a response on 27 March 2023. The landlord sent its response on 28 April 2023, meaning it took 40 working days overall. None of the published or given timescales were met. The landlord apologised in its initial response for the delay and explained it was necessary to address the resident’s complaint. While it was appropriate to apologise for the delay, it did not recognise its poor communication and the fact the resident had to contact it for an update.
33. On 30 July 2023, the resident asked to escalate her complaint. The landlord responded on 3 August 2023 explaining that she had exceeded its deadline. This decision was in line with its criteria at the time which required residents to escalate within 20 working days of a stage 1 response. We asked the landlord to consider escalating the resident’s complaint on 2 October 2023. It agreed and issued its respond on 22 October 2023. This was within its published 20-working day timescale.
34. The resident then escalated her complaint to the stage 3 review panel on 30 October 2023. The landlord responded on 25 January 2024, 19 working days over its timescale. We saw no record of a formal acknowledgement or extension requests during the intervening period, which was not in line with its policy. The landlord was in contact about some of the issues, including offering appointments to inspect or appoint the pest contractor. This would have lessened the impact of the delay to some degree. However, it would still have been appropriate for the landlord to recognise and apologise that it had not met its policy timescales, which it did not.
35. Given the above, we have ordered the landlord take steps to put right the impact of delays in its handling of the complaints. Our award is in keeping with our remedies guidance for minor impacts which cause additional time and trouble for the resident.

 

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

36. We found the landlord’s record keeping was largely satisfactory. We were able to establish what happened to a reasonable extent and complete a thorough investigation.

Communication

37. The communication with the resident in this case was inconsistent. We saw some good examples of the landlord engaging effectively with her about appointment times to meet her and her son’s needs. It also offered to work with her to reduce the number of appointments. However, there were occasions where it offered appointments that were not within the times she had specified she needed and this led to her having to repeat herself. We encourage the landlord to consider how it can improve its service to ensure a consistent approach, particularly where reasonable adjustments are concerned. The landlord should have due repairs to meeting its obligations under the Equality Act 2010.