Estuary Housing Association Limited (202209474)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209474

Estuary Housing Association Limited

26 June 2023

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:
   1. Resident’s reports of a leak in the underground car park.
   2. Associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a shared owner of the property. There is a communal car park below the building.
3. In November 2021, the resident reported two leaks in the underground car park which were near two gas storage rooms. The resident did not receive any communication in relation to these matters.
4. The resident contacted the landlord again in December 2021 about the leak in the car park and was informed that a plumber was due to attend on 16 December 2021 to inspect the leak, but this was rescheduled to January 2022.
5. On 14 January 2022, 17 January 2022 and 24 January 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to inform it that the leaks were still present in the car park. On 25 January 2022, the resident was informed someone would attend the car park on 28 January 2022. However, on 2 March 2022, the resident contacted the landlord for an update as the leak remained present in the car park with further photographs sent on 9 March 2022.
6. The resident raised a complaint about the matter on 28 March 2022. She stated that the leak had been ongoing since November 2021 and despite contacting the landlord on numerous occasions regarding the leak, no resolution had been provided. The resident also raised concerns about the communication provided by the landlord in relation to this matter as she felt that this had been poor throughout the reporting of the leak.
7. In its complaint response in May 2022, the landlord stated that the leak appeared in different places in the car park which suggested that there was a leak into the concrete fabric of the ceiling and not from a pipe. It confirmed it would be investigating further as to the source of the leak, and potentially could use dye to trace the source. It confirmed it would update the resident on the progress within a “couple” of weeks.
8. Between June and July 2022, the resident contacted the landlord on a further three occasions requesting an update on the progress made in attempting to source the originating cause of the leak. However, the landlord stated that it had been prioritising other emergency repairs and due to the nature of the repair it had encountered difficulties in identifying and repairing the leak.
9. The resident referred her complaint to this Service on 4 August 2022. She stated that the leak had been ongoing since November 2021 and despite reporting the leak on numerous occasions, the landlord had not completed the actions it stated it would to resolve the leak. As a resolution, the resident would like the leak to be located and repaired as a priority.
10. In the information provided, the landlord stated that it completed repairs to the leak in November 2022; however, no further information in relation to these repairs were provided by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

11. The landlord’s website states that it will attend all non-urgent repairs within 30 days of being reported.
12. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will provide a stage one response within ten working days.

Scope of investigation

13. In the evidence provided, it appears that a further leak was reported in March 2023. There is no evidence to suggest that these two leaks are connected as it appears to be in a separate area of the car park. Therefore, as this is a separate issue to the complaint raised with the Service, this is not something that this Service can adjudicate on at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this aspect. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved.

Car-park leak

14. When a leak is reported, the landlord should attend and assess potential sources of the leak. It is generally accepted that leaks can be hard to identify and may take multiple attempts to repair. This would only be acceptable if the landlord was continuously taking steps towards repairing the leak. Due to the landlord’s poor record keeping and lack of detail, it has been difficult to establish what works were completed. This has ultimately impacted our investigation but not our ability to make a determination.
15. The landlord did provide this Service with evidence that it resolved the leak in November 2022. This means that it took the landlord a year to identify and source the leak, and then repair this sufficiently. This was an unnecessarily long delay, and with the absence of any records provided to establish that works were being completed throughout that duration, this Service cannot be assured that the landlord was acting in accordance with its policies and procedures.
16. This Service’s finding of poor record keeping is further supported by the landlord’s admitted confusion surrounding its belief that the leak was resolved in March 2022, despite this not being correct. This confusion was clearly caused by poor record keeping, and this clearly caused the resident distress as she informed the landlord that the leak was still outstanding, and she had been reporting this continuously. The misleading information provided to the resident is likely to have exacerbated the fractured relationship of the parties and would have confirmed the resident’s concerns that the landlord was not dealing with the matter appropriately.
17. In addition, the landlord stated in June 2022, that it had been “planning its strategy” in how to complete the repairs; however, there was no evidence to support that any inspections took place or that a “strategy” had been established. In contrast, the landlord took a further five months to complete the repairs. The omissions indicate poor record keeping by the landlord in that it was not able to provide the relevant information when requested.
18. The landlord also provided incorrect repair completion dates to this Service. The landlord openly stated that it had provided an incorrect date, stating that the repairs were completed in September 2022, whereas they were completed in November 2022, two months later. This is the effect of poor record keeping and further supports this Service’s findings.
19. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s repairs processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these. Given the above the landlord’s complaint record keeping was inappropriate. It is worth noting that a recommendation has been made in relation to this matter.
20. Overall, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping. The landlord’s inadequate record keeping impacted the resident and hampered the Ombudsman’s investigation. Assessing the case in these circumstances was unreasonably difficult.
21. In addition to the poor record keeping, the landlord also had poor communication with the resident throughout the process. The resident contacted the landlord on a number of occasions, via different methods and at times no relevant information was provided, and if it was this was vague in nature meaning that the resident did not have a full response to her queries. This lack of communication regarding the repair would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident; it was clearly a pressing issue that the resident wanted to resolve due to the amount of communication she had in chasing this repair. The landlord should have acted sooner in identifying the source of the leak and it should have communicated with the resident about any delays in the repairs process. Taking the failings together, this amounted to maladministration.
22. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £350 compensation in light of the delays in repairing the leak, the poor communication surrounding the leak and the poor record keeping. This compensation is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance (published on our website). The guidance suggests amounts of £100 to £600 for cases where there has been service failure which adversely affected the resident, but no permanent impact. 

Complaint handling

23. The landlord’s complaints policy states that a stage one response should be provided within ten working days. When the resident raised her complaint on 28 March 2022, a response should have been provided by 4 April 2022; however, no response was provided. This Service’s Complaint Handling Code (which can be found on our website) states that landlords must confirm the outcome of the complaint in writing to the resident at the completion of stage one. Therefore, the landlord’s failure to provide a stage one response was not only in contrast to its own complaint handling policy, but also not in keeping with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code.
24. When a stage two response was provided to the resident, the landlord did not meaningfully engage with the resident’s complaint and did not provide detailed responses to the issues raised. The landlord did not address some of the concerns the resident raised such as the repeated phone calls to the landlord requesting updates on the leak and her complaint. The incomplete responses from the landlord would have inevitably caused the resident distress and inconvenience, leading to a failure in its service to the resident.
25. To remedy this the landlord should pay the resident £150 compensation in recognition of the impact its failings had. This compensation is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance (published on our website). The guidance suggests amounts of £100 to £600 for cases where there has been service failure which adversely affected the resident, but no permanent impact. 

Determination

26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in way the landlord handled the resident’s reports of a leak in the unground car park.
27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in way the landlord handled the associated complaint.

Orders

28. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. pay the resident £500 compensation. This is comprised of:
       1. £350 for the poor communication, delays in repairing the leak and the poor record keeping.
       2. £150 for not providing a stage one response and the lack of a detailed stage two response.
    2. Carry out a review of its record keeping and consider additional training around the way in which it records repairs, work completed and the dates these took place.
    3. Review how it communicates with residents throughout the repairs process to ensure that residents are kept up to date with the progress of the reported repairs.