Estuary Housing Association Limited (202228895)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228895

Estuary Housing Association Limited

31 October 2024

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. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns around recurring damage to the property.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident and her husband are shared owners. They own a share of the property and rent the remaining portion from the landlord. They moved to the property in 2019. The original lease began in 2015. The evidence suggests the property was built around this time. The property is a 3-bedroom, end of terrace house. It has a bathroom on the first floor and a shower room on the second floor. Both of these rooms are connected to an exterior wall at the end of the terrace.
4. The resident’s complaint relates to recurring damage in the shower and bath rooms. The resident is responsible for repairing the property. In line with her obligations under the lease agreement, she initially arranged her own repairs. She contacted the landlord in late 2020 when the repairs began to fail. She felt there was an underlying structural defect. Over the years, she raised issues around cracked walls and tiles to the landlord. The evidence shows there were some related damp and mould issues in the property. It also shows a leak impacted a nearby bedroom.
5. Following some initial interactions, the resident complained to the landlord in January 2023. She said the repair issues she had reported in 2020 were ongoing and she was unhappy with the landlord’s communication. The landlord issued a stage 1 response later that month. It accepted responsibility for some delays and communication issues. It promised to arrange an inspection and improve its communication going forwards. It also awarded some compensation. The evidence shows the inspection was intended to help the resident raise an insurance claim.
6. During an inspection in February 2023, the landlord found that some of the property’s ventilation had not been connected at the time it was installed. Its surveyor felt the issue was the source of the ongoing problems. They also felt the property’s builder was responsible for the defect. Subsequently, the resident approached the Ombudsman around March 2023. We asked the landlord to respond at the applicable stage of its complaints process. The landlord issued a stage 2 response in June 2023. It said the defect should have been identified during the property’s original development. It agreed to cover the cost of the repairs and awarded some additional compensation.
7. Following its stage 2 response, it took the landlord around 13 months to complete the repairs as promised. During the interim period, the resident chased it multiple times for updates. In July 2024 she told us the landlord had recently completed the works to “an incredibly high standard”. She said it was good to know the property was safe and free of mould. The evidence shows the landlord had allowed the resident to alter its repair specification. At her request, it changed the colour of several shower fixtures. There is evidence it allowed her to install shower boarding instead of tiles.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

8. It is recognised the situation was distressing for the resident. The evidence shows it was ongoing for a considerable period of time. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. This means we cannot determine if the landlord was responsible for any damage to the resident’s personal belongings.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns around recurring damage to the property

9. The resident emailed the landlord on 12 November 2020. She said she had noticed damage around the property’s shower soon after she moved in. She also said she had previously repaired some damage at her own expense. However, similar damage had occurred since then and water was currently escaping due to movement in the shower tray. The resident reported the shower room had always been damp. She was reluctant to arrange any further repairs in case there was an underlying structural defect. Her concerns were understandable given the property was still relatively new at this point.
10. The landlord inspected the property within 10 working days. Its repairs policy shows it should attend routine repairs within 20 working days. The evidence confirms the landlord responded to the resident’s report within an appropriate timeframe. The inspection report said no structural defects were found and no follow up works were needed. The surveyor felt the resident’s previous repairs had resolved a leak in the area. The landlord was entitled to rely on its surveyor’s professional opinion. The resident subsequently arranged sealing works to the shower. She says she began to use the shower again in January 2021 based on advice she received from a plumber.
11. The resident says the plumber’s sealing works began to fail around October 2021. The evidence indicates her plumber advised the shower enclosure (which seems to have been around 2 years old at the time) needed to be completely removed at this point. It is assumed this was to trace and rectify the root cause of the recurring damage. The resident has also said that, soon afterwards, she noticed damp was impacting a bedroom located near to the shower. She says she stopped using the shower again at this time. The evidence shows the bedroom was impacted from around November 2021 onwards.
12. The Ombudsman has seen an undated image that appears to show a damp patch impacting part of the wall, skirting and carpet in a corner of the bedroom. It is noted that the damage did not appear to be severe. It is also noted that the resident took steps to mitigate the damage because she stopped using the shower. It is reasonable to conclude that this was inconvenient even though the property had a separate bathroom. It is also reasonable to conclude the damp was a source of considerable anxiety for her. Given the circumstances, the landlord should have provided relevant advice and support to the resident around resolving potential structural defects.
13. From the evidence both parties provided, it is unclear when the resident raised the problem with the landlord again. However, on 18 November 2021 the landlord told her the property was still covered by a warranty. Call records show it advised the resident to contact the National House Building Council (NHBC – a leading provider of warranties and insurance for new build homes). Since defects are frequently resolved through the NHBC, this was appropriate advice from the landlord. Based on the resident’s timeline of events, the evidence suggests the landlord provided the relevant advice within a reasonable timescale. Overall, the Ombudsman is unable to evidence any failures by the landlord at this point.
14. In December 2021 the landlord provided the resident with a copy of the property’s warranty certificate. Records show it also inspected the property around the same time. In a related email to the resident, the landlord said there were no signs of structural movement during this inspection. However, it also said the parties had both observed some inconsistency in the property’s external rendering. The landlord said the resident should contact the NHBC about the rendering. Its actions at this time show it was engaging with the resident’s concerns and it provided her with a reasonable amount of support.
15. The parties exchanged emails in February 2022. The resident said a neighbour was experiencing similar issues with their home. Her email shows there were ongoing issues with the property’s shower room. The resident reported she had previously refitted a bath (on the first floor) due to mould, cracked walls and cracked tiles. She reiterated she was reluctant to arrange further repairs until the root cause was addressed. The landlord replied it would contact the property’s builder to arrange an inspection. This would have been a reasonable step, but there is no evidence to show what action the landlord took subsequently. The evidence shows the landlord’s progress was hampered by staff turnover around this time.
16. Records show the resident chased the landlord several times between June and July 2022. Subsequently, there was a gap in the evidence that spanned several months. The resident complained to the landlord on 9 January 2023. She said the repair issues she had reported in November 2020 were ongoing and there had been a lack of communication from the landlord. She wanted a surveyor to inspect the property. She also wanted the landlord to explain why the situation was not covered by the property’s warranty. There is no evidence to show what advice the landlord had previously given her about the warranty.
17. On 31 January 2023 the landlord issued a stage 1 response. It accepted it was responsible for some delays and communication issues. In particular, it highlighted a lack of communication between June 2022 and January 2023. The landlord awarded the resident £75 in compensation to address the failures it had identified. It promised to arrange an inspection and improve its communication going forwards. The response wording shows the inspection was intended to help the resident raise an insurance claim. The landlord’s relevant compensation policy shows it could award discretionary compensation for service failures that resulted in a significant impact to a resident. The policy did not include specific guidance around award levels. Given the failures the landlord identified, it was reasonable for it to compensate the resident at this point.
18. The landlord inspected the property twice the following month. Its initial notes said there was damp and mould in the shower room and the extractor fan was inadequate. They also said several tiles should be removed to investigate the leak impacting the bedroom. In an internal email on 27 February 2023, the landlord’s surveyor said they had revisited the property and noted there was a problem with the fan. They said the fan’s ducting was not connected to any vent in the roof space and condensation was running down the property’s outside wall.
19. The surveyor felt this condensation was the root cause of the property’s recurring damage problems. In their internal correspondence, the surveyor also noted the loft had not been “properly” insulated. They felt the property’s builder should be recalled to address both of these issues (through the property’s warranty). They also questioned whether similar issues may be affecting other homes in the estate. This shows the landlord considered the wider implications of the defect it had identified. The evidence suggests the landlord’s approach at this point was reasonable in the circumstances.
20. Based on the period between 12 November 2020 and 27 February 2023, the evidence shows it took the landlord around 28 months to diagnose the root cause of the recurring damage. This was not an ideal timeframe. Its duration indicates there may have been some issues with the thoroughness of the landlord’s inspections. In mitigation, it was noted the resident’s own engineers had not identified the root cause of the problems beforehand. In addition, it was reasonable for the landlord to expect that any ventilation equipment or ducting had been connected properly at the point when it was installed (in the absence of evidence to the contrary). It is acknowledged that more complex repair issues necessitating a ‘process of elimination’ approach may take longer to resolve. Overall, we are unable to evidence a serious diagnostic failure by the landlord based on the information provided.
21. The resident contacted the Ombudsman around March 2023. There is limited information about events at this point. The evidence suggests the resident approached us because she was unhappy with the landlord’s progress. In April 2023 we told the landlord to respond to her complaint. Subsequently, the landlord issued a stage 2 response on 8 June 2023. It said the ducting had caused the ongoing issues and it should have been connected when the fan was installed. This approach was based on its surveyor’s recent findings.
22. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint and promised to cover the cost of the repairs. It said a senior surveyor would contact the resident to arrange an inspection. The landlord awarded the resident a further £100 in compensation. At this point, its related compensation was £175 in total. Given the additional failures it identified, and their associated impact to the resident, it was reasonable for the landlord to award her additional compensation at this point. This report will consider whether the landlord did enough to put things right for the resident in due course.
23. The wording of its stage 2 response implied that the landlord felt it should have noticed the defect when it took control of the property (from the builder). While its approach was reasonable, there was little evidence to show that the landlord was obliged to assume the responsibility for completing the repairs. The NHBC’s website suggests the resident should have raised an insurance claim through the NHBC based on the age of the property. Given the circumstances, the landlord’s customer-centric approach was both welcome and significant. Overall, the evidence shows the landlord adopted an approach that went beyond its obligations to the resident. It is important to recognise this information and to credit the landlord for demonstrating best practice.
24. In July 2023 the resident chased the landlord for an update. Around a month later, the landlord emailed the resident to check on her situation. The resident replied that the landlord had given the builder a final opportunity to rectify the defect. This suggests the landlord gave the resident conflicting information in the period following its stage 2 response. The resident also said the landlord had not provided any recent updates and she was not sure what to do next. It is reasonable to conclude the situation was frustrating for her and that more effective communication would have improved her experience.
25. The parties exchanged emails in September 2023. The exchange began when the resident chased the landlord again. As highlighted above, the landlord should have kept her updated and it should not have been necessary for her to chase it. The parties’ exchange shows the landlord had been unable to contact the builder about the defect. Later that month, the resident submitted an improvement request form to the landlord. She wanted permission to complete some works to the property. Her completed form referenced the defective ducting and the associated remedial works. Her subsequent correspondence confirmed she wanted to arrange her own repairs and charge the landlord for them.
26. On 20 September 2023, the resident told the landlord there had been a lack of communication following its stage 2 response. She said she lacked confidence that it would resolve matters. The resident also told the landlord that she had already obtained various quotes for the repair works. Along with her frequent requests for updates, submitting an improvement form and obtaining quotes was evidence the resident was making considerable efforts to progress the repairs. This level of effort should not have been necessary and likely caused significant inconvenience for the resident.
27. During internal correspondence in October 2023, the landlord said the inspection it had promised the resident in its stage 2 response was still outstanding. The landlord said it should arrange the inspection and progress the remedial works. Records show the landlord called the resident the following month to arrange an inspection. They also show a visit was subsequently cancelled because the landlord was unable to obtain a suitable ladder to complete the inspection. It is reasonable to conclude this situation was both avoidable and frustrating for the resident.
28. The resident chased the landlord again in December 2023. She said there had been a lack of updates since its most recent visit. She also said it was difficult to understand the delay because the landlord had already accepted responsibility for the repairs. Around the same time, the landlord asked its repairs team to investigate why the works had not started and the resident had not been updated. These were reasonable enquiries in the circumstances. They showed the landlord recognised that its service should have been better.
29. The landlord’s surveyor inspected the property in late January 2024. They relayed their findings in an internal email the following day. They said there were no serious issues with the property’s bathroom. However, some plasterboard in the shower room should be replaced along with all the existing grout and silicone. In relation to the bedroom, the surveyor said the damaged plasterboard and skirting should also be replaced. They recommended works to make good and redecorate following the repairs. They also said the ventilation system should be “reinstated” and checked by a relevant specialist.
30. On 5 March 2024 the resident chased the landlord by email. She said she was planning to visit its head office within days. This was to ensure that the landlord had raised the repairs it had previously agreed to complete. Subsequently, one of the landlord’s senior managers visited the property around 1 month later. Their inspection report said the landlord should replace the whole shower area (including tray, screen and tiling). They also said additional mould treatment works were needed in the property’s bathroom and bedroom.
31. The evidence shows the senior manager expanded the scope of the landlord’s recommended repair works. However, the landlord’s enhanced specification did not include any works to address the insulation problem that its surveyor had previously identified in February 2023. The landlord’s failure to act on its surveyor’s professional recommendation was both unfair and inappropriate. It is reasonable to conclude that the issue was forgotten due to the amount of time that had passed. The landlord should be able to track and monitor any outstanding repair recommendations. The situation points to inappropriate record keeping by the landlord.
32. In April 2024 the resident chased the landlord again and the parties exchanged emails. The landlord said a contractor would attend the property and provide the landlord with a quote for the works. Although the landlord already knew the root cause of the problem, the evidence shows it made around 4 visits to the property between December 2023 and April 2024. Repeated visits typically indicate there are problems with a landlord’s internal coordination and/or record keeping. It is reasonable to conclude that the high number of visits was both avoidable and inconvenient for the resident.
33. The landlord provided a contractor’s quote from 10 May 2024. It shows the repair works were expected to cost around £3,680. The evidence shows the landlord subsequently amended its repair specification again at the resident’s request. This was based on its internal correspondence from 21 May 2024. The correspondence said “the resident was delighted” that the landlord had agreed to provide a shower enclosure and fittings in her preferred colour scheme (black). From the wording of the correspondence, it is reasonable to conclude the resident’s preferred colour option added to the landlord’s overall costs. The Ombudsman was unable to measure this increase from the evidence both parties provided. However, it is positive that the resident’s preferences were accommodated. This demonstrates a flexible and solution-focused approach by the landlord.
34. The resident updated the Ombudsman by email on 5 July 2024. She said the works “[had] just been completed to an incredibly high standard”. Her email said the defect was resolved and the property was safe and mould free. Her comments suggest she was satisfied that matters had been fairly resolved. The evidence shows the landlord eventually completed the repairs around 13 months after it had taken responsibility for them. This was an unreasonable timeframe in the circumstances. In mitigation, the landlord amended its repair specification to accommodate the resident’s preferences.
35. The resident updated the Ombudsman during a phone call in October 2024. She confirmed the recurring damage issue was resolved. She agreed it was likely that her preferences had increased the landlord’s overall repair costs. In relation to the defective insulation, she said the landlord had never completed any works to address the issue. The evidence points to an inappropriate delay of around 20 months. This is based on the period from 27 February 2023 to date. From the evidence both parties provided, there is no indication that the property’s inadequate insulation had a significant impact on the resident.
36. In summary, the evidence shows the resident was often the driving force behind any progress that the landlord made. It supports her concerns about the landlord’s lack of communication. It also shows she was given conflicting information and there was a general lack of clarity from the landlord. The resident was also impacted by avoidable delays and repeat visits. It is likely this compounded a situation that was already distressing for her. It is unclear whether the landlord ultimately recognised the full extent of its failures. Some of these failures occurred after it had issued its stage 2 response.
37. In contrast, the landlord went beyond its obligations by taking responsibility for the repairs. The evidence suggests it was not obliged to do this. Its approach was both welcome and significant. The landlord agreed this positive course of action during its own internal complaints procedure. Later, the landlord allowed the resident to amend its repair specification. This was to ensure she was satisfied with the overall outcome. It likely incurred additional costs as a result. The evidence shows the landlord’s overall redress amounted to at least £3,855. This includes £175 in compensation that it awarded the resident. This was a significant level of expenditure to put things right.
38. Given the circumstances, the Ombudsman has taken a holistic approach out of fairness to the landlord. Having done so, we did not find a good reason to override the landlord’s previous efforts to redress the resident in relation to the recurring damage. Our remedies guidance shows that awards in excess of £1,000 are likely to be proportionate in cases where serious failings by a landlord have resulted in a severe long-term impact to a resident. Awards of this value are often consistent with “severe maladministration” findings from the Ombudsman. It is noted that the resident appeared to be satisfied with the final outcome upon completion of the works. If we had not identified a separate problem, we would have reached a “reasonable redress” finding in this case. In other words, we would have found that the landlord had done enough to put things right for the resident.
39. However, the landlord overlooked an additional defect that its surveyor identified in February 2023. The surveyor said the property’s loft had not been “properly” insulated and the builder should be recalled to rectify the problem. The resident has said the matter remains unaddressed to date. Given the surveyor’s recommendations, the evidence points to an inappropriate delay of around 20 months based on the timing of this assessment. The evidence suggests the outstanding repair stems from a record keeping failure.
40. While there was no evidence of a significant impact to the resident, it is reasonable to conclude the situation will undermine her confidence in the landlord. It also needs to be addressed. Based on the outstanding insulation defect, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint point. The Ombudsman has awarded a proportionate amount of compensation to put things right for the resident based on the evidence we have seen. Our award reflects the landlord’s relevant compensation policy (effective November 2023) and our own guidance on remedies.

The landlord’s complaint handling

41. The resident complained on 9 January 2023. The landlord issued her a stage 1 response on 31 January 2023. This was 16 working days later. The landlord’s relevant complaints policy shows it should have logged and acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days. It also shows a stage 1 response should have been issued within 10 working days subsequently. In combination, these timescales show the landlord’s maximum applicable timeframe was 15 working days. The evidence points to a short delay of around 1 day. Given the duration of the delay, an apology would have been sufficient to address it. However, there was no indication the landlord recognised the delay or apologised for it accordingly.
42. In her complaint, the resident asked the landlord to explain why her situation was not covered by the property’s warranty. The landlord acknowledged this  enquiry when it confirmed it had logged her complaint at stage 1. However, it did not address the matter in its subsequent stage 1 response. This was contrary to the applicable version of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) as published in March 2022. Section 5.6 said “Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint”. The evidence shows the landlord’s response was contrary to the Code. Since the resident was trying to establish who was responsible for the repairs, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s lack of engagement with this key point added to her frustration.
43. It was unclear if the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. The evidence we were provided shows she contacted the Ombudsman in March 2023. On 22 April 2023, we asked the landlord to respond within an applicable timescale (depending on the relevant complaint stage). The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 8 June 2023. This was 30 working days later. The landlord’s relevant complaints policy shows it should have logged complaints within 5 working days at stage 2. Its response should have been issued within 20 working days afterwards. The evidence shows there was a delay of around 5 working days. It also shows the resident chased the landlord for its response on 6 June 2023. This was avoidable and likely inconvenient for her.
44. Given the duration of the delay and its impact to the resident, the landlord should have awarded a proportionate amount of compensation to put things right. The landlord’s complaint notes suggest it issued the resident a £10 voucher to acknowledge the delay. This shows it considered its own complaint handling during its investigation. The landlord should do this at each complaint stage to ensure it can address any procedural delays or failures accordingly. The landlord’s relevant compensation policy shows it could apologise for service failures by making a discretionary payment of up to £15 in the form of gift vouchers. The evidence shows the landlord’s award was in line with its applicable compensation policy. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord could have awarded multiple vouchers in cases where it identified multiple failures.
45. The evidence shows there was an error in the landlord’s stage 2 response. The response said the defective ducting had been repaired and was working correctly (when the response was issued). In contrast, the surveyor’s recommendations in January 2024 show the property’s ventilation had not been “reinstated” at this point. The resident contacted the landlord on the day the response was issued to dispute the landlord’s assertion. It is reasonable to conclude the inaccurate wording undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s response and/or complaint resolution.
46. In summary, there were several issues with the landlord’s complaint handling. They included an overlooked delay, a lack of engagement with a key complaint point and an inaccurate stage 2 response. The resident was impacted by the failures and the landlord should have addressed them accordingly. There was no indication it recognised these errors or attempted to put things right. This was unfair and inappropriate in the circumstances. Although it took steps to address a separate delay, the landlord’s offer of a £10 voucher was arguably disproportionate given what went wrong. It did not reflect all of the failures identified by this investigation (4 in total). As a result, the evidence shows there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
47. Given the above, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation. Our award reflects the “medium” impact category in the landlord’s most recent compensation policy. It is based on a flat rate of £25 for each of the above identified failures.

Determination

48. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
    1. Response to the resident’s concerns around recurring damage to the property.
    2. Complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

49. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to apologise to the resident. The apology should recognise the key failures identified in this report. It should reference the outstanding insulation defect and the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord should share a copy of its relevant correspondence/call summary with the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
50. The landlord is ordered to address the outstanding insulation defect that its surveyor highlighted in February 2023. Since it previously took ownership of the ventilation defect, it is encouraged to adopt a consistent approach. The landlord should evidence its actions to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
51. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £425 in compensation within 4 weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
    1. £325 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified issue with the landlord’s response to her concerns around structural defects. If it has already paid the resident, the landlord is free to deduct the £175 that it previously awarded during its complaints process.
    2. £100 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified issues with the landlord’s complaint handling. If it has already issued the resident a £10 voucher, the landlord is free to deduct this amount from the total figure.
52. The landlord must share this report’s key findings with its relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes. It should share a copy of its relevant internal communication with the Ombudsman within 4 weeks. The communication should stress the importance of record keeping (especially around repair issues). It should also include some brief refresher training around the process for addressing structural defects when a home is under warranty. The evidence shows the landlord’s lack of clarity impacted the resident in this case.