Estuary Housing Association Limited (202322553)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322553

Estuary Housing Association Limited

15 May 2025

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:
1. A defect and replacement of the resident’s bath and bathroom tiles.
2. The complaint.

Background

The resident is the shared owner of a 2 bedroom third floor flat. The shared ownership started in April 2020. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing and is the freeholder of the resident’s building.
After moving into the property, the resident raised concerns around defects including her bath. The landlord raised these issues with the developer and its contractor told it in July 2021 that they could not repair the bath due to an underlying issue. The issues continued into 2022, and the landlord continued to have issues with the developer which it explained to the resident. The resident confirmed its contractor spoke with her about the bath, but she could not provide access at the time and agreed with the landlord that it needed replacing.
The landlord said internally that the developer had spoken to their contractor to source the tiles needed for the job. This was just in case any of them got damaged when removing her bath. The issue around the defects remained outstanding despite the landlord’s attempts at correspondence with the developer. It chased a response from them between June 2022 and 2023.
The landlord and resident spoke on 27 June 2023. The landlord told the resident that:
1. Its contractor told it about an issue with the colour of some replacement tiles. Some of the tiles provided were not an exact colour match and this was likely because they were from a different batch to the originals.
2. It could not remove the bath without causing damage as it was recessed into the wall and they could not drop it out from underneath.
3. It understood that she asked that it replace all the tiles as she was not happy with the colour variation. The contractor provided it with a quote to undertake the additional work. It had considered the quote and would not continue with the additional tiling.
4. It understood that this was disappointing, but it was mindful that this was work which the developer should undertake as snagging. It had committed to replacing the bath as a sign of good will. As yet, it had no firm commitment to recover the costs of this from the developer.
5. It therefore could not incur extra costs based on aesthetics, particularly as a social landlord. All of its revenue was “rent payers” money and it had a duty of care to ensure it spent it maintaining the safety of its stock.
6. It was happy to continue the work to replace the bath and any immediately affected tiles but would advise that she funded or undertook any further tiling work privately as per the Shared Owner Agreement.
7. It apologised again if this caused her any inconvenience, and it understood this may be frustrating.
She responded on the same day and said the landlord owed her a duty of care. She said she did not think it was fair that she should bear the consequences of the developer’s errors. She asked it to ask the contractors to contact her and book the works in using the tiles she had. It responded the same day and confirmed it had passed her email on to the contractor and asked them to liaise with her.
The resident told the landlord on 28 June 2023 that she had reconsidered and could not accept its offer. She explained her concerns and said there was a 10 year insurance policy and under the New Home Quality Board code of practice, she had the right to have the snags fixed in a quality and timely manner. The contractor had already damaged the tiling when they took out one tile to get a sample. She said she hoped it would reconsider its position.
The landlord responded on the same day and said:
1. Its position remained the same. It would replace the bath and any immediately affected tiles with those sourced by its contractor. It would not however commit to retiling the bathroom.
2. Her request was under aesthetics due to concerns about a slight colour matching issue. This was not a health and safety issue and as such it would not consider it.
3. It considered all issues reported before the 1 year defect liability period ended on 12 October 2021 as defects which the developer should cover. After this date, they were the responsibility of the resident as a shared owner.
4. It was in dispute with the developers over their failure to resolve defects. It was trying to establish which issues residents notified it about before October 2021 and which they notified it of after.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked it to log her concerns as an official complaint on 28 June 2023.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 17 July 2023. It:
1. Reiterated its position in relation to her bathroom from its email of 28 June 2023. It explained the issues with her bath was a defect and as such the developer’s responsibility.
2. Explained the actions it had taken to contact the developers including letters from its legal advisors and acknowledged the frustration caused to the resident.
3. Said it had contacted the National Housing Builders Council (NHBC) around the developer’s actions to see if residents could make a claim through them. It advised her that the NHBC said she had her own policy as a shared owner, and she needed to submit her claim in relation to her own home.
4. Told her it did not uphold her complaint as it was committed to replacing the bath and any immediately affected tiled area but would not agree to retile the bathroom. This was because it was purely an aesthetic consideration, not a safety risk.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 9 August 2023. She said she did not believe it fully addressed the points she raised. She said:
1. They both agreed that the bathtub replacement was a snagging issue. All the later issues caused by it were an integral part of snagging repair and the contract guaranteed they would put it right. By putting right, she understood this to mean returning it to the original state, and this meant a new, undamaged bathtub, and identical tiles in the whole bathroom.
2. She wanted to remind it that the contractors removed a part of a tile to match it with the extra tiles they brought when they were meant to carry out the work in June 2023. Since then, she had a damaged wall.
3. Except for practical and aesthetic function, tiles also form a part of property valuation. Unmatched tiles would bring the property value down causing her a substantial financial detriment. She understood the complexities of the legal situation between the landlord and the developer who did not fulfil their contractual obligations. However, as she repeatedly emphasised, her contract was with the landlord.
4. The landlord had a duty of care towards her as well as contractual obligation to make good any defects reported by her within the defect period. According to multiple sources, the landlord should be sourcing alternative contractors to carry out the works and recover costs from the original contractor who was liable but failed to deliver.
5. It mentioned that as a shared owner, she had her own insurance policy. She confirmed this but this was only a content policy which did not cover sanitary installations. The buildings insurance which the landlord held covered them.
6. It said in its response that it was liaising with the NHBC to confirm the current contractual situation with the developer. It said it aimed to convince them that there was no longer any recourse to the developer and the individual polices needed to apply. This meant that her claiming through the building’s insurance was not an option at the time.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 13 September 2023. It reiterated the agreement between the parties around replacing the bath and any immediately affected tiles. It said where a resident was unhappy with a colour match, they had the option of making their own arrangements to replace additional requirements. This was consistent with its approach to all residents, and it considered this reasonable in terms of putting things right. It also explained its actions with the NHBC and acknowledged the frustration the situation caused.
On 1 October 2023, the resident brought her concerns to us. She explained the situation and the issues with her bath, the contractor, and the developer. She told us she wanted the bathtub replaced and the tiles matched as originally agreed. She said the landlord’s contractor initially took the tiles off the wall, damaging the wall to “match the batch.” If it could not match the current tiles, she wanted it to retile the entire bathroom. She did not believe she should incur the costs.

Post complaint

The landlord held a meeting with the developer on 10 June 2024. The developer said they believed the issue with the bath was a manufacturing fault. They were liaising with the manufacturer for a replacement. At the meeting, they offered to replace the bath and damaged tiles. They reiterated at the meeting, that all the tiles would need replacing following the work.

Assessment and findings

A defect to the resident’s bath and replacement of the bath tiles.

The landlord’s website says that shared owners are responsible for maintaining and repairing the internal parts of their home. It says that they are responsible for ensuring that the contents of their home are insured. It provides the details of their buildings insurer and explains that they exclude damage caused by an existing or hidden defect from the policy.
The evidence provided shows that the resident raised the defects with the bath within the defect liability window (October 2020 to October 2021). The landlord appropriately referred the matter to the developer. When they did not act, the landlord positively decided to try remedy the issue. As this did not work, it also took responsibility and decided to replace the bath. It has also shown to us that it tried to contact the developer several times between 2020 and 2023.
The landlord also tried to contact the developer through its legal team, it sought advice on how both it and the resident could tackle the issue with the developer and tried to act through the NHBC around the issue. It also suggested that she claimed from her insurance, as this was a successful avenue for other residents. Whilst appropriate that it suggested an insurance claim, it would have been advisable for it to also consider a referral to its own insurance. However, the fact that it did not do so does not appear to have caused the resident any detriment.
We consider that it has shown that it took the matter seriously and tried to rectify the situation. Its actions around the matter were appropriate.
The replacement of the bath meant that the landlord’s contractor would potentially need to damage some of the tiles in the resident’s bathroom. It looked to see if it could match the current colour of the tiles in her bathroom. It explained that it was unable to achieve this, but it would still replace any damaged or removed tiles from her bathroom. This would however not be an exact match. This led to the resident declining the replacement of the bathtub and the tiling works.
We understand why the resident wanted the tiles in the bathroom to match. However, we find that the landlord’s approach was reasonable. This is because, its responsibility was only around replacing any tiles which it damaged to complete the necessary works. It took the necessary steps to try to source matching tiles but could not do so.
The landlord also at no point created the expectation that it would retile the entire bathroom. The colouring of the tiles would not have altered their intended purpose, to keep the bathroom watertight. Nor would it have changed or affected the purpose and use of the bathroom. Based on this we find that there was no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of a defect and replacement of the resident’s bath and bathroom tiles.

The complaint

The landlord’s policy says it will acknowledge a complaint at stage 1 and 2 of its process within 5 working day. The resident raised her complaint on 28 June 2023 and as such, the landlord should have acknowledged it on 5 July 2023. It did not do so until 11 July 2023, 4 working days later than it should. The delay in acknowledging the response does not appear to have caused the resident any detriment. It appropriately identified the delay and awarded the resident compensation.
The landlord offered the resident compensation of a £10 voucher for the delay in its complaint handling. We consider this was appropriate, as there is no evidence that the delay in acknowledging the complaint led to any detriment to the resident. It also did not delay the complaint handling process as the landlord appropriately responded at both stages within the required timeframes. Based on this we consider that there was reasonable redress with the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

By paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme there was no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of a defect and replacement of the resident’s bath and bathroom tiles.
By paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme, there was reasonable redress with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

Provide the resident with any further updates around the bathroom issues if it has not done so already.