Estuary Housing Association Limited (202017245)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202017245

Estuary Housing Association Limited

31 August 2023

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the property.
This service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 35(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states: “a complaint is duly made when it has exhausted, or the Ombudsman has decided it has exhausted, the members internal process for considering complaints”. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 1 March 2021.
This Service asked the landlord to provide evidence related to this investigation to assist with the assessment and determination. However, the information it provided contained evidence of activity that predates this complaint and goes beyond its final stage 2 complaint response, and therefore beyond the scope of this investigation.
It is however prudent for some elements of the additional evidence to be considered and referenced in the report; where it provides clarity on activity that is within the scope of this report. Where this occurs, it is noted.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, the tenancy began on 16 March 2015. The property is an end terrace house. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the household.
Section 2(3) of the tenancy agreement sets out the landlord’s repairs obligations. This states that the landlord will keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property, including the drains, gutters, roof, outside walls, windows, internal walls, ceilings, doors, plasterwork and boundary walls.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 details the landlord’s repair obligations as “to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house”.
The landlord’s repairs policy categorises its repair types as “Emergency”, these repairs are to be made safe within 24 hours and “Routine”, these are completed within 20 working days and an appointment is arranged at the residents “convenience”. This policy describes circumstances the landlord would consider offering compensation. The policy states that the landlord will consider offering non-statutory compensation when it had failed to deliver a specific service.
Section 6.1.1 of its repairs policy states appointments are confirmed via text message, when the appointment is made and a day before the appointment. “A final reminder text or a phone call is made up to an hour before the appointment”.
The landlord’s statutory and discretionary payments procedure states that it will consider offering discretionary compensation in circumstances where “a customer can demonstrate they have suffered severe inconvenience and/or financial loss due to our service failure”. The policy gives guidance on recommended payment levels, with the maximum award being £250. The chief executive must authorise any payments above this suggested maximum award.
The landlord’s complaints and customer feedback policy provides for a two-stage formal complaints procedure. Complaints should be acknowledged within five working days of receipt and complaint responses at stage 1 should be provided to the resident within ten working days of the acknowledgement and stage 2 provided within twenty working days.
Section 5.1 of the same policy details expressions of dissatisfaction/informal complaints. It describes these as “where the issue is straightforward and easily resolved the matter will be assigned to a member of our front-line staff, to be dealt with in an informal way. They will respond (usually by telephone) within 2 working days. If the matter cannot be resolved immediately, they will work with you to agree a satisfactory conclusion. Where customers remain dissatisfied, they may request that the issue be escalated to a formal complaint”.

Summary of Events

The resident phoned the landlord on 7 January 2021 to discuss the unfinished repairs to her property, the landlord’s call record log describes the resident as “very upset” and a call back request was logged.
The resident phoned the landlord again on 20 January 2021 as she had not received a callback, a further callback request was logged to discuss the issues with the property which included, damp and mould, repairs to a garden wall and potential subsidence.
The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord via email on 20 January 2021. Within this complaint the resident said she had nothing but problems with the property since she moved in, she’d had numerous repairs which needed further repairs to be raised due to damage or not being completed properly. The resident detailed the following as examples:
1. A leak in the hallway ceiling due to the bath not being fitted properly.
2. She waited 6 months for a new door to be fitted, wall was damaged when it was fitted, plastering had to be done twice as the first job was not to a good standard.
3. Her shower had just been repaired and a tile was broken in the process, she was still waiting for this to be fixed and the shower needed a further repair.
4. The back wall had been repaired 3 times and still had a crack running the whole way down it. She had been waiting a year and a half for this to be resolved.
5. She had reported mould on a bedroom ceiling, this was the second room this had happened to.
6. A cupboard was also in need of repair and she had not had a call back from 7 January 2021.
7. She had experienced jobs being cancelled and people not turning up which resulted in her losing a days wage due to taking time off.
8. She had been told someone would look into potential subsidence at the property as cracks were visible on the external walls but she had not heard anything back on this.
The landlord visited the property on 2 February 2021 in response to the resident’s complaint.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 9 February 2021, its response confirmed at the visit on 2 February 2021 the items listed in the resident’s complaint were discussed and additional items added as the resident had neglected to add these to the original complaint. It summarised the issues as below:
1. The leak from the bathroom was completed in 2015, alongside making good the damage caused to the hallway.
2. The damage to wall around the rear door was completed in 2016.
3. The shower was replaced in January 2021, a wall tile was damaged in the process and the new shower temperature was still fluctuating. An appointment had been booked for 9 February 2021 to repair.
4. A surveyor had advised the contractors that an expansion joint was required to the rear back garden wall following a visit on 12 August 2020. The landlord advised the wall was sound and had been repaired in various places but it would chase the contractor up about the fitting of the expansion joint.
5. The landlord’s repairs contractor had no record of the call made to them in January 2021 about the mould in the rear bedroom, the landlord had instructed its contractor to clear the gutters and check the roof tiles for damage, after which it would decide if an air vent was needed.
6. The resident believed the property had been underpinned in the past and on one of the visits, the landlord had said to her they would look into if there had been any previous subsidence claims. The landlord confirmed there had been no previous subsidence claims but acknowledged there were cracks which were visible in the external brickwork. The landlord advised it would request a survey and report of the findings.
It clarified further repairs which were picked up at visit and reported through to its contractor, these included:
1. Repair to a kitchen wall unit,
2. Hot tap dripping in bathroom,
3. Rear bedroom window did not look straight, the landlord confirmed it was discussed this would await the survey results.
The landlord concluded by recognising the service failure in the delay to repair the rear garden wall but as no other service failure was found it did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
The resident responded to the landlord’s stage 1 response on 13 February 2021. She informed the landlord that she felt it had missed the point of her complaint. She clarified that she should not be having to chase jobs to be done, the jobs should not need multiple visits they should be repaired the first time and she should not be taking time off work for jobs to be cancelled last minute or the contractor not to turn up. She informed the landlord it had also missed the repair to the airing cupboard off the list.
The resident sent a further email on 19 February 2021 to add another issue to her complaint, the shower repair. She also mentioned someone came to look at the roof but she had not had an update.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 1 March 2021. Within this response the landlord confirmed:
1. The airing cupboard repair was discussed at the visit on 2 February 2021 but was not included in response. It advised this was an oversight and confirmed a works order had been raised.
2. It confirmed it had requested a subsidence report from its insurers and this would be arranged with her, it advised it would also share the findings.
3. The landlord went on to advise it could not see anymore outstanding repairs on its system, other than the new ones raised at the meeting in February. It gave the list of repairs and the target timeframes of completion for each, this included the shower which the resident wanted to add onto the complaint, the landlord confirmed that the shower was not repaired fully at a visit and subsequent work was required.
4. The landlord clarified the contractor has tried to book in the fitting of the expansion joints to the wall but the resident had advised them the landlord said the work would need to await the survey findings. The landlord said it would contact the resident to arrange these works accordingly.
The landlord advised the historical repairs were completed by a previous contractor and the system did not show repeated visits but it accepted the resident’s accounts and the inconvenience caused. Overall, the landlord found service failure in repairs to the shower and garden wall, due to these being outside target timescale and needing multiple visits to resolve. It apologised and promised all works would be completed without further undue delay. It offered £50 compensation for the failure to provide a service, the delay and inconvenience caused.

Events post the landlord’s internal complaints process.

A structural survey was undertaken on 2 March 2021 by the landlord’s insurers and a report issued on 9 March 2021. Notes state the reports findings were shared with the resident.
The resident phoned the landlord on 3 March 2021 to advise she planned to escalate her complaint to this service as she was unhappy with the response given. A call back request was logged. The landlord’s repair logs show the resident called on another three occasions before receiving a callback from the landlord on 22 April 2021. Within this callback the landlord advised new repair requests would be outside of the complaint which they had previously responded to.
The landlord visited the property on 23 April 2021 and then again on 11 May 2021. A list of further works were agreed with the resident at these visits and evidence has been seen that subsequent works orders were raised by the landlord and completed. The landlord increased its compensation offer from £50 to £200 to the resident. This offer was set out as follows:
1. £50 for failure to provide a service.
2. £100 for delays
3. £50 discretionary payment.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised that the situation was frustrating for the resident. The timeline provided to this service of reported repairs confirms that the repair needs had been ongoing for a considerable period of time. Though additional issues have arisen during the timeline, the scope of this investigation is limited to the matters raised by the resident and addressed by the landlord during its response to the resident’s formal stage 1 complaint. Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that the landlord must have had the opportunity to consider and address a complaint before the Ombudsman would ordinarily consider it. Additionally, paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matter arising may not be considered. As we have seen no evidence that the landlord has had the opportunity to address the residents further issues though its complaint process we have not considered them in this investigation. If the resident wants to pursue her concerns further, she may wish to consider raising a new complaint with the landlord.
The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by adhering to relevant legislation, its policies, and any agreements with the resident and that the landlord acted reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the property.

In accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure of the building. Once on notice, the landlord is required to carry out the repairs or works it is responsible for within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its obligations under the terms of the tenancy agreement and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case. From the evidence provided the landlord fulfilled its obligations in this respect by recording the repairs once it was aware of them and aiming to complete them within its target timeframes. Although the historical number of repairs would have caused the resident rising frustration, the landlord completed the majority of repairs within its target timeframes at the time of the resident’s complaint. Those that were completed outside of these timeframes it acknowledged in its complaint responses, which this service sees as reasonable.
Furthermore, it was reasonable for the landlord to instruct its insurers to carry out a structural survey in response to the structure of the property coming into question. Landlords hold building insurance to cover the cost of repairing or rebuilding the structure of its properties, which can be a significant cost. By doing this it fulfilled its obligation under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and its tenancy agreement.
This service has seen evidence of correspondence between the contractors and the landlord giving reasons for the cancelled jobs to the garden wall, however it has not seen evidence that this information was passed onto the resident at the time. The resident’s complaint of having to phone multiple times to chase up jobs supports the conclusion that this was not shared with the resident which would have added to her frustration.
The resident in her stage 1 complaint raised concerns about the landlord’s overall handing of repairs since the start of her tenancy. This Service has seen evidence that in 2017 and 2020, the resident raised complaints about the landlord’s handling of numerous repairs. Whilst it is recognised that the resident reports having multiple repair related issues since she moved in, this investigation focusses on those repair issues which were complained about within a reasonable period of the issue arising and not later than six months afterwards. The landlord’s repairs log provided to this service shows the majority of these jobs as completed in a reasonable timeframe. The landlord took action to ensure the shower repair was completed and the garden wall was in a safe condition, it also acknowledged that these repairs were not completed in its target timescales.
In her complaint, the resident raised many of the repairs as still outstanding. In this case, it was appropriate for the landlord to inspect the property and conduct a thorough review to identify all the outstanding issues in order to provide a fair and thorough response to its repairs handling. The landlord identified some of the outstanding repairs, logged new repairs and attempted to resolve them. It clearly set out the repairs and their status in its complaint responses. This was an appropriate response by the landlord due to the number of repairs the resident was reporting and it obligations to carry out the repairs.
In summary the landlord took appropriate and reasonable steps to meet its legal obligations in carrying out the reported repairs to the property. Although it is recognised the volume of repairs required on the property, that was built in 1975, would have caused the resident time and trouble to allow access for these to take place.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

This service has assessed the landlord’s complaint handling and although the landlord took a resolution based approach to carry out the repairs to the property, it failed to recognise and acknowledge some of the key issues of the residents complaint. The landlord focused on resolving the resident’s repairs in its complaint process, it failed though to acknowledge and therefore investigate her complaint about having to chase up repairs via the phone, why multiple visits had taken place or if the contractor had cancelled appointments last minute and if so why. The purpose of a complaint process is to resolve the complaint, in this regard it was unreasonable that the landlord did not even seek to confirm which repairs needed repeat visits or which the resident needed to chase up even though its contact log shows multiple calls from the resident requesting call backs about repairs. Additionally,, the landlord did not acknowledge the level of impact on the resident of the multiple visits and delays and particularly how these may have impacted upon her.
By not providing a thorough investigation it missed the opportunity to explore what went wrong and why despite multiple appointments, it had been unable to resolve some of the repairs. Hence, that prevented the landlord from learning how to avoid similar situations in future.
The landlord failed to provide a thorough investigation of its repairs handling and address all of the outstanding issues as raised in the resident’s escalation request. For the ones it identified as outstanding and said that it would carry out, it did not provide any plan or advance programme of works, it just gave target timescales. Given the resident’s complaint was regarding the amount of time she was spending chasing jobs up to get completed it would have been reasonable for the landlord to arrange suitable appointment dates to carry out all these repairs in its complaint investigation and oversee these to ensure their satisfactory completion.
The resident had raised historic concerns and dissatisfaction about the handling of repairs from the start of her tenancy and described how she was inconvenienced multiple times. The landlord did not however express any empathy towards the resident or acknowledge and recognise the impact that this would have had on her. Not to do so cannot but have caused additional frustration and adversely influenced the resident’s perception of and relationship with the landlord.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and details of lessons learned) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. This service will also consider the resulting distress and inconvenience and the resident’s circumstances will be taken into account.
The landlord, although it recognised a service failure in its stage 1 response did not offer any form of redress. It was when the complaint escalated to stage 2 that it offered £50 in compensation for the delays and inconvenience caused. Upon reviewing the complaint at a later stage, it then increased its offer of compensation to £200. This was in line with its policy, however due to the complaint investigation not fully looking into the issues the resident had raised it was unable to establish the true level of detriment to the resident and therefore a further award of compensation has been ordered.
In summary the landlord followed its procedures for its complaint handling and showed some good practice in visiting the property on multiple occasions to try to resolve the residents repair issues. However, its handling of repair issues was a fundamental aspect of the resident’s complaint. Its failure to acknowledge or investigate the number of times the resident chased up repairs or jobs were cancelled last minute, alongside the omission of another element of the residents stage 1 complaint in its response has resulted in a determination of service failure for its complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the residents reports of repairs to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

While the extent of repairing need might be viewed as excessive it was not so given the age of the property and the landlord reasonably fulfilled its obligations under the tenancy agreement by carrying out the reported repairs within a reasonable timeframe on the vast majority of occasions.
The landlord failed to respond to the residents complaint fully, therefore it missed the opportunity to investigate what had gone wrong and establish if it could improve its services by any learning from the complaint. It failed to acknowledge or investigate the number of times the resident chased up repairs or jobs were cancelled last minute which the resident highlighted in her escalation request.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within the next four weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for a senior member of staff to send a written apology for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a further £200, in addition to its offer of £200, for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in its complaint handling.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must initiate and complete a review of this case, identifying learning opportunities that must be shared with this service outlining at minimum its review findings in respect of:
1. Its intention to ensure its complaint handlers capture all elements of a complaint in the acknowledgement and thereafter in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
The landlord must provide compliance of the above orders within the specified timeframes.

Recommendations

It is recommended the landlord review its monitoring of issued works, including those which are cancelled by its contractors.
The landlord should share its intention in relation to the above within 8 weeks of the date of this report.