Estuary Housing Association Limited (202304853)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304853

Estuary Housing Association Limited

16 September 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
    1. A leak in the property.
    2. Damp and mould in the hallway cupboard.
  2. The Ombudsman will also investigate the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy for a 2-bed maisonette on the ground floor. The maisonette is within a block of flats.
  2. The landlord is a housing association. It was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
  3. On 6 December 2022 the resident reported a leak from the back of his toilet. The landlord attended the same day. The operative could not gain access to the flats above the resident to establish the cause of the leak.
  4. On 12 December 2022 the resident reported that the leak had not been resolved. The landlord attended the same day, however, again it could not gain access the neighbouring properties.
  5. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 15 December 2022 to check if the electrics needed to be isolated due to the leak. The operative told the landlord no electrics were being affected by the leak.
  6. On 19 December 2022 the landlord gained access to the flats above the resident and carried out repairs to resolve the leak.
  7. The resident told the landlord he wanted to make a complaint on 13 January 2023. The landlord did not keep a record of the resident’s complaint.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 27 February 2023. In its response it said it:
    1. Understood the resident’s complaint was due to the leak not being resolved for 5-6 weeks and its impact on his mental and physical health.
    2. Apologised it took time to identify the cause of the leak and resolve it.
    3. Had arranged an appointment on 8 March 2023 to carry out remedial works.
    4. Offered £50 compensation for the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing this matter as well as the distress and inconvenience caused.
    5. Said the compensation would be credited to the resident’s rent account as he had rent arrears.
  9. The landlord carried out a damp and mould inspection on 27 February 2023. The surveyor said there was condensation in the property and raised the following works:
    1. Remove mould from the bathroom and the landing ceiling.
    2. Stain block the landing ceiling.
    3. Fill in hallway wall.
    4. Redecoration.
  10. The resident refused the above works to be carried out on 8 March 2023 as he was concerned the areas were still damp and the landlord had not yet determined why this was.
  11. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 15 March 2023 to clean his carpets, the resident said he had already removed the carpets.
  12.  The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 14 April 2023. In its response it said it:
    1. Understood the resident had raised concerns about the time taken to complete repairs and the lack of communication.
    2. Instructed a surveyor, who had spoken to a ventilation expert, and agreed the repairs would resolve the situation.
    3. Would also replace 2 extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom.
    4. Would hold the outcome of its decision until:
      1. All outstanding remedial works are completed.
      2. The leak procedure is reviewed.

Events after the landlord completed its complaints procedure

  1. The landlord’s contractor carried out a damp and mould inspection on 26 April 2023. The contractor said the kitchen, bathroom and toilet extractor fans needed upgrading. It said there did not seem to be any other contribution to humidity in the property.
  2. On 26 June 2023, the landlord carried out a damp and mould inspection. The report stated there was rising damp which needed further investigation. The landlord inspected the pipework in the resident’s property on 11 July 2023. It found no leaks, but there was condensation on the main water pipe.
  3. The bathroom and toilet fan were replaced on 18 July 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. Therefore, this investigation will consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint issues from December 2022 to its final complaint response in April 2023. Including any actions the landlord stated it would take in its complaint responses that occurred after April 2023. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction prior to the involvement of the Ombudsman. Any issues that have occurred after the landlord’s formal complaint procedure should be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.
  2. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health or wellbeing. Whilst the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s claims that the landlord’s handling of repairs had a negative impact on his health and wellbeing. These matters are better suited to be considered by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
  3. The resident told the Ombudsman the leak damaged his carpet and personal belongings. We would not look at claims the way an insurance provider would, or award financial redress for damage to items which should be covered by insurance. However, where the Ombudsman has identified failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s obligations

  1. The landlord has a statutory duty under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, as well as the installation and supply of water, gas, and electricity. It is obliged to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours and make the property safe. It will complete routine repairs within 20 working days.
  3. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its complaints and customer feedback procedure states it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy stated the landlord will pay:
    1. £10.50 per week towards the cost of a dehumidifier, up to £100.
    2. £10 for each failure to keep to an appointment, which includes when the landlord cancels an appointment on the day.
    3. £15 voucher if it fails to respond to communication.
    4. Up to £250 for service failure, and stress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in the property

  1. The resident reported a leak to the landlord on 6 December 2022. The landlord acted appropriately by treating this report as an emergency repair and attending the property within its 24-hour target response timescale. However, it could not gain access to the flats above to investigate or resolve the leak. There is no evidence the landlord tried to make the resident’s property safe within 24 hours as stated in its repairs policy. The landlord attended the property to assess whether the electrics were safe on 15 December 2023, this was 9 calendar days after the leak was reported. This was a significant failing.
  2. On 12 December 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report the leak was on-going. No evidence was provided by the landlord that it had taken any action prior to this to investigate the cause of the leak. The landlord’s records state it contacted the neighbouring flats on 13 and 19 December 2022. Works were completed and the leak resolved on 19 December 2022, this was 13 calendar days after the resident initially reported the leak. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to take a pro-active approach to the repair. Its approach was not customer focused, which caused the resident distress and inconvenience as he did not know when the leak would be resolved.
  3. There was evidence of a lack of communication with the resident. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to keep the resident updated on the cause of the leak, how it resolved the leak, and a plan of works to rectify the damage cause by the leak. On 23 December 2022 the landlord told the resident once the property had dried out it would contact him to book in the remedial work. There is no evidence the landlord contacted the resident, which resulted in him raising a complaint on 13 January 2023, and chasing updates on 24 January and 20 February 2023. The landlord acted unreasonably by failing to communicate effectively with the resident and failing to manage his expectations.
  4. On 18 January 2023, the resident told the landlord’s contractor that he had thrown away the carpet damaged by the leak and therefore no longer needed an appointment for the carpet to be cleaned. The landlord’s contractor contacted the resident on 3 occasions to rebook the appointment, the landlord did not discuss the issue with the resident until 28 March 2023 and the job was closed. The contractual relationship is between the landlord and the resident. The landlord must ensure it maintains contact with the resident throughout the repair process and avoid leaving external contractors to communicate with residents directly. This ensures the landlord is fully aware of all issues and the onus is not put on the resident to report these or chase for updates.
  5. The landlord acted appropriately by instructing a surveyor to assess the damage caused by the leak. The survey was carried out on 27 February 2023, this was 48 working days after the landlord had resolved the leak, which is outside its target response of 20 working days for routine repairs. There was no evidence the landlord discussed the outcome of the survey with the resident. This resulted in the resident refusing access for an appointment on 8 March 2023 to complete the surveyor’s recommended works. The resident told the landlord this was because he felt it had not identified the cause of the leak. The landlord’s lack of communication contributed to the delays in the remedial works being completed.
  6. The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities. His vulnerabilities were relevant factors to inform the nature, tone, and communication of the landlord’s handling of the repairs. There is no evidence the landlord considered the impact of the leak or the remedial works on the resident’s health, carried out a risk assessment or offered appropriate support.
  7. The landlord acted appropriately by providing the resident with a dehumidifier. The landlord’s records do not say when it provided this or how many were provided. The resident told the landlord he was struggling to afford the cost of the dehumidifiers on 22 December 2022. The landlord acted appropriately by contacting the resident the following day to offer the resident £21, which was broken down as £10.50 per week. This was in line with its compensation policy at the time. The resident received this payment on 23 January 2022, 1 month later. This was an unreasonable delay. The resident chased an update twice raising concerns of affordability.
  8. On 7 February 2023 and 17 March 2023, the resident told the landlord the amount of compensation did not cover the costs of the dehumidifiers. There was no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns, or considered this when it paid the £50 compensation (offered in its stage 1 response) into the resident’s rent account. This was not customer focused and was not considerate of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
  9. The landlord applied a mould wash on 24 May 2023, completed some of the plastering works on 26 May 2023, and finished the plastering works on 28 June 2023. The landlord’s records state further works were required after this appointment. The landlord has not provided evidence to the Ombudsman that it has completed the remedial works.
  10. In summary the landlord responded to the report of a leak within its target timescale for emergency repairs, however, it failed to make the property safe within 24 hours. There was a delay in it investigating and resolving the leak, and in carrying out the remedial works. It is unclear if all the remedial works have been completed at the time of this investigation. There was evidence of poor communication and record keeping. The landlord failed to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities or offer appropriate support. There was no evidence of learning as the landlord has not reconsidered the complaint as promised in its stage 2 complaints response. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation in its stage 1 complaint response; however, this does not reflect the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  11. Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in the property.
  12. It is noted the resident raised concerns with the Ombudsman about the level of compensation the landlord pays for the supply of dehumidifiers. Since the resident’s complaint the landlord has updated its compensation policy. Since November 2023 it has offered residents £5 per day per dehumidifier.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the hallway cupboard

  1. It is unclear from the landlord’s records when the resident first reported the damp and mould in the hallway cupboard. The evidence provided shows the resident discussed this with the landlord on 13 March 2023. This investigation has investigated the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould from this date.
  2. The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. The landlord has failed to maintain adequate records, which has impacted the Ombudsman’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation. This was a failing by the landlord.
  3. The landlord acted appropriately by instructing a damp and mould inspection of the resident’s property. The landlord’s records state the inspection was carried out on 26 April 2023. However, its stage 2 complaint response dated prior to this on 14 April 2023, refers to this inspection and the operative’s recommendation to replace the extractor fans. There is no evidence the landlord told the contractor to investigate the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the hallway cupboard. This showed the landlord had a lack of understanding and failed to fully consider the issues being reported.
  4. The landlord replaced the bathroom and toilet fan on 18 July 2023, this was 3 months after the damp and mould inspection. The landlord had to rearrange the appointment 3 times due to it failing to approve the work to its contractor, unavailable stock, and staff sickness. Although the contractor kept the resident updated, and the delay due to the availability of stock was unavoidable, the landlord failed to show it was proactive in completing the works. A landlord must ensure it maintains contact with the resident throughout the repair process, and ensure it has processes in place to appropriately manage delays caused by contractors. It was unreasonable the landlord left the resident to arrange appointments directly with the contractor, especially when the resident had previously raised concerns about the works and refused access to appointments.
  5. The damp and mould survey recommended that the landlord replaced the kitchen, bathroom, and toilet extractor fans. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response it told the resident it would replace the extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom. On 13 June 2023 the landlord contacted its contractor and told them not to replace the kitchen fan. The landlord has not provided any evidence to the Ombudsman on why it went against the surveyor’s recommendation to replace the kitchen fan. There was also no evidence this was discussed with the resident.
  6. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will pay a resident £10 a day for its failure to keep to appointments, which included appointments cancelled the same day. No evidence was provided to the Ombudsman that the landlord made this payment to the resident for the appointment it cancelled on 15 June 2023 to replace the extractor fans.
  7. After the internal complaints process the landlord’s records show it carried out a mould wash on the walls and ceiling of the hallway cupboard on 28 June 2023. The landlord also carried out a further damp and mould inspection on 29 June 2023 and inspected the pipework in the resident’s property on 11 July 2023. The landlord found no leaks, but there was condensation on the pipework. At the time of this investigation the resident told the Ombudsman the hallway cupboard was still damp, however, the landlord was in communication with him about further investigations and works to be completed.
  8. In summary the landlord failed to evidence it addressed the resident’s concerns of damp and mould in the hallway cupboard until June 2023, which was 2 months after his initial report. The damp and mould was still outstanding at the time of this investigation, 18 months later. There was no evidence provided why it did not replace the kitchen extractor fan as promised in its stage 2 complaint response. There was evidence of poor communication and record keeping, and the landlord has not shown any learning or that it took any steps to puts things right.
  9. Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

The landlord’s complaints handling

  1. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 13 January 2023. The landlord acknowledged this on 20 January 2023, which was within its target response timescale of 5 working days.
  2. The landlord failed to contact the resident to discuss his complaint before issuing its stage 1 response. The resident contacted the landlord on 24 January 2023 and asked to be contacted about his complaint. There was no evidence the landlord responded. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to resolve the complaint at the earliest opportunity.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 27 February 2023, this was 27 working days later, which was outside its target response timescale of 10 working days. The landlord contacted the resident on 10 February 2023 to extend its deadline, however, it had already gone past its agreed timescale which resulted in the resident chasing an update on 7 February 2023. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to effectively communicate with the resident and manage his expectations.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint on 17 March 2023. The landlord acknowledged this the same day, which was within its target response timescale of 5 working days. The landlord acted appropriately by contacting the resident to discuss why he wanted to escalate the complaint.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 14 April 2023, this was within its 20-working day target response timescale. In its response the landlord said it would put its response on hold until the remedial works were completed, and it had reviewed its procedures around leaks. The landlord failed to agree an extension with the resident, and it did not provide a clear timeframe of when it would issue its response. No evidence was provided to the Ombudsman that the landlord provided the resident with a final stage 2 complaint response. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to adhere to its complaints and customer feedback policy and the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
  6. In both its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses the landlord failed to show it fully investigated the resident’s complaint. Its responses did not inform the resident what action it had taken, what action it was going to take to resolve the situation, and how it was going to ensure it would not make the same failings. The landlord also failed to identify or apologise for it’s complaint handling failures in its responses.
  7. Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes, and build good relationships with residents. In this case there was a delay in the landlord issuing its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord failed to evidence that it fully investigated the resident’s complaint. There was evidence of poor communication. There was no evidence of any learning and the landlord failed to take steps to put things right as it did not provide its final decision on the complaint as promised in its stage 2 complaint response.
  8. Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the hallway cupboard.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified within this report.
    2. Pay the resident £600 in addition to the £50 previously offered by the landlord in its stage 1 complaint response. The compensation is to be paid directly to the resident and not into his rent account. The compensation is broken down as:
      1. £250 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in the property.
      2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the hallway cupboard.
      3. £200 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused to the resident by its complaints handling.
    3. If the landlord has not already paid the £50 compensation offered to the resident in its stage 1 complaints response, it should re-offer this amount to the resident.
    4. Consider whether it should refer the resident to its liability insurers for the damage the leak caused to the resident’s carpets and personal belongings.
    5. Write to the resident and the Ombudsman to provide an update on any outstanding works. This includes:
      1. The remedial works from the damage caused by the leak. Confirmation of whether the works detailed in the surveyor’s report dated 27 February 2023 have been completed and the property has been put back to the condition it was in before the leak.
      2. The kitchen fan. Confirmation on whether it has been replaced as stated in the stage 2 complaint response. If it has not been replaced, the landlord must provide an explanation on why this is.
      3. Confirmation of whether the landlord has established the cause of the damp and mould in the hallway cupboard. If not, confirmation of what investigations it is carrying out to determine the cause of the damp and mould. If any works are needed a plan of these works, including timescales.
      4. If any works are needed the landlord must consider the resident’s vulnerabilities and discuss any support or reasonable adjustments with the resident.