Ekaya Housing Association Limited (202301847)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat. She reported to the landlord issues about the drainpipe on her balcony and damage to her bedroom ceiling caused by leaks.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
   1. Problems with the drainpipe.
   2. Damage to the bedroom ceiling following leaks.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was reasonable redress for the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of the resident’s reports of problems with the drainpipe.
   2. Complaint handling.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to the bedroom ceiling following leaks.

We have made an order for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The handling of the resident’s reports of problems with the drainpipe

6. The landlord’s award of compensation and its identified learning about the drainpipe problems was fair and put things right.

The handling of the resident’s reports of damage to the bedroom ceiling following leaks

7. Although the landlord’s award of compensation for the damaged bedroom ceiling was fair, it did not manage the situation effectively until it was resolved.

The landlord’s complaint handling

8. The landlord’s award of compensation for its delayed complaint responses was fair and put things 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.

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.

9. The landlord accepts that there were failings in how it handled the matter. When it acknowledges failings, we assess whether it resolved the complaint fairly and whether it offered suitable redress. We also consider if the landlord’s actions followed our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
10. The resident first raised concerns about the balcony drainpipe in June 2023. She reported that water was pooling and feared it could cause damage.
11. There were considerable delays in resolving the issue. The landlord did not install a new drainpipe until February 2024, about 7 months later, which did not meet the timescales set out in its repair policy.
12. The delays were mainly due to confusion over who was responsible for the repair and whether it was a defect. The landlord acknowledged its final response that the issue took too long to resolve and that communication with the resident was poor.
13. In its final response, the landlord also acknowledged that its defect management process fell short of expected standards. It accepted that it should have demonstrated greater responsibility for ensuring the issue was handled promptly and effectively. The landlord also identified lessons learned and said it would stop using third-party organisations to manage defects. This was reasonable.
14. The landlord upheld this part of the complaint, acknowledging that avoidable delays had occurred and that these caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident. It awarded a total of £2,850 compensation. However, it is unclear how much of this amount was specifically related to this element of the complaint. We have recommended that the landlord provide greater clarity in its compensation offers. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to say that a substantial portion of the award was for this issue. This was fair.
15. Overall, the landlord’s acknowledgement of its failings, the compensation awarded, and the identification of learning points were sufficient to put things right.

16. The resident said she reported a leak damaging her bedroom ceiling in March 2023. While the landlord did not dispute this in its stage 2 and 3 responses, its stage 1 response claimed there was no record of the report. This raises concerns about the landlord’s record-keeping, and we have made a recommendation to address this.
17. There were unreasonable delays in repairing the ceiling damage, and another leak occurred in the bedroom in October 2023. The landlord failed to return to investigate, causing the resident significant inconvenience and forcing her to chase for updates. It also missed an appointment, adding to her distress. Although the landlord said in its stage 2 response that it would arrange a new appointment, it is unclear whether this happened.
18. In her stage 3 escalation, the resident said the bedroom ceiling had been damaged since late March 2023, with no repairs carried out. The landlord’s communication was again poor, and it failed to investigate or follow up promptly. This caused further distress and inconvenience due to the delayed works.
19. The landlord appropriately acknowledged these failings in its final response. Again, it is reasonable to say that a substantial portion of the compensation awarded related to this aspect of the complaint, which was fair.
20. However, the landlord did not follow through on the commitments it made in its final response. There was also another leak, and it took too long to resolve the problem and redecorate the bedroom ceiling.
21. We appreciate that the 15 February 2024 appointment did not go ahead due to the resident cancelling this. However, another leak occurred on 18 February 2024 and the landlord did not address this with any urgency despite being aware of this continuing issue and the impact this was having on the resident. There was also again a lack of communication around arranging appointments and identifying the source of the leak. The evidence showed a lack of management of the issue after the landlord’s final response.
22. In March 2024, the landlord increased its compensation offer. This likely reflected some of the issues that happened after its final response. Later, in June 2024, it also issued a new Stage 1 response regarding this matter and apologised, offering an additional £50 in compensation. The landlord’s records indicated that around this time it repaired the bedroom ceiling.
23. While the compensation offered was fair and followed our remedies guidance, the landlord’s actions after its final response showed that it had not learned from the situation. This is a service failure, and we have ordered the landlord to carry out a learning exercise.
24. The resident informed us that repairs to the side gate remain outstanding. While the resident did not include this issue in her stage 3 escalation and is therefore outside the scope of our assessment, she did raise this in her stage 2 escalation. The resident remains concerned, as she requires access to the meters via this gate. Therefore, we recommend that the landlord assess the necessary repairs.

25. The landlord did not respond within the timescales set out in its complaints policy. It took nearly a year to respond to the resident’s complaint, and more than 2 months to respond at both stage 2 and 3. This caused the resident time and trouble, and she had to come to us for assistance. It also caused her distress, as she felt the landlord was ignoring her concerns.
26. The landlord apologised for the delays in its stage 2 response. It also offered £600 compensation, part of which was for its delayed stage 1 response. It also apologised again in its final response and explained that the total compensation amount took into account these delays.
27. Based on the landlord’s offer, it is reasonable to say that a considerable amount of the total compensation was for the distress caused by its poor complaint handling. This again was fair and in line with our remedies guidance. As such, the landlord’s award of compensation was sufficient to put things right for the detriment caused by its poor complaint handling.
28. Due to the repeated delays throughout the complaint, we have identified some key learning points, which are outlined below.

Learning

29. Ensure timely action is taken to resolve ongoing issues, especially repeat leaks.
30. Follow through on commitments made in complaint responses.
31. Monitor post-resolution issues to prevent further service failures.
32. Treat each complaint as an opportunity to rebuild trust with the resident.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

33. Maintain accurate and up-to-date records of all communications, appointments, and repair actions.

Communication

34. Communicate clearly and consistently with residents about appointments and repairs.
35. Respond to complaints within its policy timescales and clearly communicate any delays.