Estuary Housing Association Limited (202310898)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202310898
Estuary Housing Association Limited
17 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
- This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the trickle vent above the living room window of the property.
Background
- The resident is an assured tenant of the property, which is owned by the landlord.
- The resident reported an issue with the trickle vent on 19 January 2023. The contractor visited on 30 January 2023 and confirmed that the vent needed replacing. They ordered the materials and arranged a follow-up appointment for 6 March 2023. However, the second contractor did not have the materials, so the repair was not done.
- The resident raised a complaint on 7 March 2023. He said there had been 2 wasted appointments for which he had taken time off work.
- The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 3 April 2023, after extending its original deadline of 28 March 2023. It said that there had been a lack of communication as the original operative was off sick. It apologised and offered the resident £30 in compensation.
- In the meantime, the contractor arranged another appointment for 28 March 2023. The contractor cancelled this the day before (27 March 2023).
- The resident requested the escalation of his complaint on 17 April 2023. He said that £30 in compensation was not enough, and the works were still outstanding.
- The contractor replaced the trickle vent on 16 May 2023.
- The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 18 May 2023. It reiterated its stage 1 response.
- The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman on 21 August 2023. He was dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses to his complaint and the amount of compensation it had offered.
Assessment and findings
Relevant policies and procedures
- The landlord’s repairs policy categorises repairs as either emergency or routine. Routine repairs will be completed within 20 working days from receiving the repair request. It further states that the landlord will offer a £10 shopping voucher if a contractor has failed to keep an appointment. It defines a failed appointment as a situation “where a member of staff or a contractor does not attend on the date specified, or they arrive more than 1 hour late for their appointment without making prior contact with [the resident].”
- The landlord’s compensation policy states that compensation will not be paid for loss of earnings.
- The landlord’s statutory and discretionary payments procedure states that a discretionary payment will be offered if a resident can show they have suffered severe inconvenience and/or a financial loss. If there has been a failure to follow a policy or procedure, £30 will be offered. A senior manager may look at a failure to provide a service in line with the landlord’s standards, or a failure to take action in a timely manner. They will consider the extent of the loss, with one example being loss of earnings.
Repairs to the trickle vent above the living room window
- The landlord responded to the reported issue and arranged for a contractor to visit on 30 January 2023. This was prompt and within its timescale for a standard repair issue. That visit identified the need for parts, which is why the issue could not be resolved on the day. The contractor scheduled a follow-up appointment for 6 March 2023. That meant the 20-day target was exceeded, but that was not unreasonable as parts were required.
- The contractor was not able to undertake the repair on 6 March 2023 as they did not have the parts. The landlord acknowledged this as a failing in its response to the resident’s complaint.
- The allocated slot was 8am to 1pm, and the contractor arrived at 1:25pm. The resident raised that the contractor was late, which added to his frustration. The landlord acknowledged the inconvenience caused to the resident.
- The contractor arranged another appointment for 28 March 2023. They contacted the resident the day before to confirm that the visit was cancelled. This was frustrating for the resident, however there was no wasted visit on that occasion.
- The contractor made 2 further appointments, which were not convenient for the resident. The resident contacted the contractor on 20 April 2023 to agree another date. The contractor replaced the trickle vent on 16 May 2023. Accordingly, there was one wasted appointment overall (6 March 2023), and the resident’s availability partly affected the time taken to complete the work.
- The landlord acknowledged its failing and the delay it caused. It apologised and explained the steps it had taken with its contractor to avoid a repeat of the mistake that led to the wasted appointment. These were relevant and proportionate remedies in line with the expectations set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
- The landlord also offered £30 compensation for both the wasted appointment and the contractor’s lateness. This amount exceeds what its compensation policy states it will pay when an appointment is missed or failed but is in line with its policy for failing to follow relevant procedures. It also reflected the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which states compensation should be proportionate to the nature and scale of the failing.
- The resident asked the landlord to compensate them for lost income, due to having to stay home to provide access for the repairs. The landlord provided 2 compensation policies for this investigation. Its discretionary payments procedure indicates the landlord will consider lost earnings. However, its compensation policy (which appears to be more recent) states that it will not do so. The landlord did not specifically respond to this point.
- The evidence does not suggest that the scale of the failing should have led to the landlord considering lost earnings. Nonetheless, it would have been good practice for the landlord to explain why it would not consider that level of compensation, as this was of clear importance to the resident. Our own remedies guidance also recognises that landlords are not ordinarily required to make payment for loss of earnings. This Service has, therefore, not made an adverse finding regarding the disparity in the policy provisions.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of repairs to the trickle vent above the living room window of the property satisfactorily.
Recommendations
- The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord pays the resident the £30 previously offered (if it has not done so already). The finding of reasonable redress is on the basis that the landlord makes this payment directly to the resident.
- The landlord should also consider strongly consider addressing the disparity in its policy provisions with respect to loss of earnings as this could give rise to further confusion on its position in similar situations.