Estuary Housing Association Limited (202340870)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202340870

Estuary Housing Association Limited

30 September 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 the resident’s:
1. Concerns about a gap at the bottom of the front door.
2. Concerns about the position of the lock on the front door.
3. Reports of repairs to the floor near the front door.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. The property is a ground floor 2-bedroom flat which she moved into in October 2020. The resident has a physical disability.
The resident complained to the landlord on 25 October 2023. She said her new door had a 25mm gap at the bottom. She explained that her flat was “freezing”, and she was concerned that the door was not compliant with fire regulations. The landlord did not treat the resident’s communication as a complaint and so on 2 November 2023, she raised her complaint again. Within this correspondence, the resident also expressed concern that the lock was positioned too low and that flooring around the door and the skirting board was damaged during the installation. The resident added that she had contacted an independent fire specialist company who advised there should be no gaps around the door.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 22 November 2023. It acknowledged that its contractor needed to complete a repair as the drop down seal built into the bottom of the door was not working correctly. The contractor also advised the gap may be reduced by restoring the threshold to its original position by creating a rise of 10mm. The landlord recognised that the resident “preferred” the threshold to be flush due to her disability, and it would try to avoid changing this accordingly. It said it struggled to arrange access to the property, which it needed, as per the terms of the tenancy agreement.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 15 December 2023. She stated the gap at the bottom was 25mm and the dropdown seal was not broken. Her son had unscrewed it to the lowest level but there was still a 10mm gap. She stated that according to fire regulations the dropdown seal should not be lowered more than 4mm. The resident explained that a previous occupational therapist (OT) assessment clearly stated she needed level access. In relation to access, she disputed she had “broken” the terms of her tenancy. To put things right, the resident wanted it to measure and install a new door. She also added that she wanted the lock to be positioned higher as it was difficult to operate with her disabilities.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 19 January 2024. It stated its contractor had ordered a bespoke door threshold which it would fit once it was available. It said it would only consider installing a new door as a last resort if it could not find a solution for the existing door. In relation to the resident’s concerns about the door handle, it offered to change it for a disability approved design with longer levers. It stated it was unable to relocate the lock. It said it would ask its contractor to assess the flooring damage when it returned to install the threshold. It felt its communication and handling of the resident’s concerns had been reasonable as it had considered her personal needs. However, it acknowledged it had taken longer than expected as the solution required was bespoke.
The resident referred her complaint to us on 19 February 2024. She remained unhappy as the landlord had not fixed the door and repaired the flooring. The complaint became one we could investigate on 22 October 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident explained the landlord’s handling of her concerns about the front door is impacting her health. We are not medical experts so we cannot assess whether something caused an impact to health or not. The resident could seek independent advice regarding this aspect or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance. We will, however, consider whether the landlord acted appropriately and whether this caused any distress or inconvenience.
In her communication with us, the resident referred to concerns about her wet room floor. Namely that it was not suitable for her mobility needs. This was dealt with by the landlord as a formal complaint, under separate complaint references. The landlord informed us recently that the resident also raised a personal injury claim, and this has been settled. Our investigation has therefore focused on the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the front door, the lock and the flooring in the surrounding area.

Gap at the bottom of the front door

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states that landlords must “keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house.” This includes doors, door frames and skirting boards. The landlord’s tenancy agreement and repairs policy further enforces this.
There were issues with the previous front door and its lock which led to the landlord installing a new door on 11 September 2023. We note that the resident signed the paperwork at the time of installation, which indicated she was happy with the door. While this may have been the case at the time, she later raised her concerns about the impact of this on her. As such the landlord had a duty to consider her concerns and apply its policies accordingly.
The resident raised her concerns about the new door and a 25mm gap at the bottom of it on 25 October 2023. She explained it was unacceptable and “freezing” in the property as a result. She repeated her concerns the following day.
The contractor emailed the resident on 2 November 2023 to ask if it could attend to install a new threshold and drop the seal to reduce the gap to 5mm. The evidence does not suggest that the resident responded. As such, on 20 November 2023, the landlord appropriately followed the matter up with its contractor. The contractor confirmed the following day it had made multiple calls and emails to try to book the job but had been unsuccessful. We have not seen evidence of the calls and emails, but the other contemporaneous evidence does suggest that the landlord was making efforts to try to progress matters so that the situation could be resolved.
The landlord contacted the resident on 21 November 2023 to discuss the matter. She sent a follow-up email to explain that she felt the landlord was not being considerate about her disability. She also denied receiving contact from the contractor. We cannot reconcile the difference here, but we are satisfied that the landlord was taking proportionate action to follow up.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response the next day. Within this, it explained that it wanted to install a threshold with a 10mm rise. It appropriately explained that this would be compliant with building regulations for wheelchair access, which permits a rise of 15mm. It added that it would try to avoid the need for this as it understood the resident wanted the threshold to be flush. This response was reasonable and demonstrated it had considered her needs, and it will be willing to work with her for a solution.
While the landlord’s response was fair, it is unclear why it did not seek input from an occupational therapist or recommend that the resident undergo a further assessment to determine what level of threshold, if any, would be reasonable. It is noted that prior to the installation, the landlord consulted the resident about the door. The resident said that at this time, she reminded the landlord of her requirements as she already had an OT assessment which concluded she needed level access throughout the property. There is no contemporaneous record of the discussion that took place during this meeting. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have recorded this, so that it could ensure that it had an audit trail of what was discussed and any agreed follow up actions.
The resident has also informed us that she had provided this OT assessment to the landlord. This is not disputed. However, the evidence suggests that the landlord did not have this readily available, but that it did try to obtain a copy of this independently. Nevertheless, the landlord’s aid and adaptations policy states if there is any doubt as to whether any adaptations requested are appropriate, it will request an OT assessment. Furthermore, it states where there is a need and the applicant currently has no contact with a health or other care service, then it will request either a letter from other health professionals in support of the application.
It is acknowledged that the resident was not requesting any alterations to her existing threshold. However, the landlord should reasonably have made enquiries as to whether raising the threshold would be appropriate prior to suggesting this as a solution. We consider that it was a failing and a missed opportunity that it did not do so.
On 28 November 2023, the resident told the landlord she had not been contacted about an appointment. However, she explained she was not prepared to accept a higher threshold as proposed in the stage 1 complaint response. She reiterated the landlord was not listening to her concerns about her disability.
Throughout December 2023, the landlord chased the contractor to see if it had been able to establish an appointment with the resident. The contractor stated it had tried calling and sent a letter but there had been no response. Again, we have not seen the contractor’s emails to the resident. However, the evidence suggests there was a breakdown in communication. The resident had already explained she did not accept the landlord’s solution as proposed in its stage 1 response, it is therefore unclear why it had continued to pursue this. There is no evidence to show that it explained to her that it wished to attend the property to try a different remedy other than raise the threshold. Had the landlord engaged with the resident in a more meaningful way, it could have handle the challenges with access and the overall fix to the door more effectively.
When the landlord issued its stage 2 response it explained it had ordered a bespoke threshold which had been designed to reduce the risk of tripping. This was reasonable. This demonstrated to the resident it was committed to exploring different solutions to make the door work and it had considered her disability. However, we have seen no evidence that this proposed solution was suitable or suggested following input from an occupational therapist. The landlord has therefore failed to demonstrate that it had given the resident’s concerns due consideration or that it has acted in accordance with its aids and adaptations policy.
We can see that there have been challenges with communication, access to the property and the landlord has tried to offer what appear to be pragmatic solutions. However, we have identified:
1. there were failings in communication which affected the overall handling of the issue with the gap.
2. it failed follow its aids and adaptations policy to ensure the resident’s requests were dealt with appropriately.
As a result, we have made a finding of maladministration. In line with our remedies guidance, we order the landlord to pay £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the above failings.
It is noted that an inspection after the stage 2 response recommended that the door and frame be lowered with suitable amendments made to the area above it. A later email suggested this would compromise the door’s compliance with fire regulations. It is therefore clear that the issue is yet to be resolved, we have therefore made an order aimed at progressing matters and putting things right.

Concerns about the position of the lock on the front door

The landlord attended the property on 26 September 2023, to complete outstanding repairs. During the attendance, the resident advised that owing to her disabilities, she was unable to bend to access the keyhole (which was located beneath the door handle). The resident expressed concern that this had been discussed with the landlord prior to the door installation, and that it had failed to take this into account. As noted above, we have no contemporaneous evidence relating to the meeting. It is therefore unclear what was discussed.
The resident raised her concerns formally as part of her complaint of 2 November 2023. By way of response, the contractor emailed the resident to explain that due to the design of the of the door, the lock and handle was limited to a specific height measurement. Essentially it said there was no option to relocate the lock. This was repeated in the stage 2 response.
It is again unclear why the landlord did not seek OT input or request that an assessment take place. Either prior to the door installation or once the resident had raised her concerns. Had it done so, it would have been able to follow the recommendations of the report and manage the resident’s expectations about what would happen next. As the landlord did not do so, the resident was caused further inconvenience in having to refer her complaint to us. As a result, we have made a finding of maladministration in relation to the resident’s complaint about the position of the lock.

Repairs to the floor near the front door

When the landlord attended the property on 26 September, the resident also raised concerns about how the threshold was fitted using square blocks at the edge. This was subsequently raised as part of her formal complaint too. The resident said that there was damage to the flooring and the skirting boards and provided photos accordingly.
The landlord’s stage 1 response did not address this issue, which was not appropriate. While this was not raised in the resident’s request for escalation, she did mention it again in an email on 5 January 2024 and asked for her concerns to be included in the stage 2 review. At this point it had been 3 months since she had raised the issue. There is no evidence that the landlord inspected the floor. This was not in accordance with its repairs policy.
We do acknowledge that the landlord’s contractor was trying to arrange a visit to resolve the resident’s concerns about the gap at the bottom of the door. However, there is no evidence that the landlord was taking steps to repair the surrounding area until 16 January 2024, when it raised this point with its contractor. It may have been the case that the landlord was waiting to address this after the issues surrounding the gap at the bottom of the door had been resolved. However, if this was the case, it should have reasonably explained so.
In the stage 2 response the landlord did indeed confirm that its contractor would propose a fix when it came to install the threshold. While this was a reasonable approach this could and should have been explained sooner to manage the resident’s expectations and to provide her with assurance that something would be done to resolve the matter. The landlord therefore missed an opportunity which compounded the distress and inconvenience that had already been caused to the resident. As a result, we have made a finding of service failure. We order the landlord to pay compensation of £50. This is in line with our remedies guidance for minor failings where there has been minimal detrimental impact on the resident. This takes into account the repair is mostly aesthetic in nature.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a gap at the bottom of the front door.
2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the position of the lock on the front door.
3. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the floor near the front door.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified by this investigation, in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on making apologies.
2. Pay the resident £550 compensation. It should be paid directly to them and not to their rent account. It comprises of:
  1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of concerns about the gap at the bottom of the door.
  2. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of concerns about the position of the lock on the front door.
  3. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of repairs to the floor near the front door.
3. In line its aids and adaptations policy, either refer the resident for an OT assessment or seek OT input in relation to the door threshold and the lock. Following this, the landlord should discuss any OT recommendations with the resident and advise what action it will be taking and when.
4. The landlord should reply to us with evidence of compliance with the orders within the period set out above.