Hyde Housing Association Limited (201903897)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201903897

Hyde Housing Association Limited

9 August 2021

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:
   1. The landlord’s responses to the resident’s reports about delays in completing maintenance work at the property.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Jurisdiction

2. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
3. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
4. The resident has complained to this Service that she “had disrepair” in a previous property for about 6 years, until the landlord moved her into her current property in March 2017. The resident has also said that several of the issues raised with the current property were present when she moved in.
5. Paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme details that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. As the above concerns were not raised to the landlord as a formal complaint until 3 July 2019, they are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, this investigation will focus on the events which occurred in the months leading up to the complaint to the landlord in mid-2019. Any references to earlier events are for context and background only.

Background and summary of events

6. In an internal email dated 3 July 2019, the landlord said that the resident asked for “the ongoing issue with the communal garden to be logged as a complaint”. The resident had requested the landlord’s policy on communal gardens, and said that it was not in her tenancy agreement that residents had to maintain them. The resident also complained that she believed she was being charged for the communal lighting via her electricity bill.
7. The landlord advised the resident during the call on 3 July 2019 that “a project is under way looking into this [garden] issue” and the resident requested a letter confirming how long it would take. The landlord logged the complaint at “stage zero”.
8. On 10 July 2019 the landlord acknowledged that the resident had also complained that flooring had not been put down in the kitchen; the bath was “the wrong way round”; there was very low pressure to the bath taps, which had taken too long to resolve; and the uncertainty about the maintenance of the communal gardens meant it was impeding her access to the property. The landlord advised that it would aim to respond by 23 July.
9. In the landlord’s stage one complaint response, dated 24 July 2019, it confirmed that a surveyor carried out an inspection of the property prior to the resident moving in to bring it up to the ‘minimal living standard’. Its inspections were health and safety focused and so they would ensure any ‘risk’ related repairs were remedied, as opposed to repairing/updating the cosmetic items.
10. The landlord confirmed that its surveyor visited the property on 11 June 2019 and noticed that sections of the flooring in the kitchen and bathroom were uneven. The resident said this was how the flooring was when she moved into the property. Following this, the surveyor raised works to replace a section of the kitchen floor covering, to match the rest; renew the casing under the boiler; and renew the floor covering in the toilet. These works were not yet booked in, and the landlord had asked its contractors to contact the resident as a matter of urgency make the arrangements. It apologised that this had not been done already.
11. The surveyor confirmed that he investigated the bath’s installation on his visit. He commented that it was installed correctly and did not require moving.  The landlord identified that the bath had a mixer tap with a shower attachment, and when the tap in the kitchen was turned on the pressure reduced in the bathroom. It confirmed that the surveyor also asked the gas contractor to renew the radiator in the bathroom and examine the boiler, to find out if this was further affecting the pressure in the bath tap. It understood that the issue had been resolved and therefore the action taken by the gas contractor had been successful.
12. The landlord confirmed that it had its own metered landlord’s electrical supply at the property, and there were no communal services connected to the resident’s domestic electrical supply.
13. The landlord explained that on 9 November 2018, it visited the property in relation to a complaint raised by another tenant. The tenant had explained that the maintenance for the communal rear garden had been previously split amongst residents. Unfortunately, residents had not maintained it for several years and it was now overgrown. Due to the landlord not charging for any services to the communal area, this meant the residents were liable for the upkeep of the garden area. Following this initial discussion the landlord had asked for cost quotes from its contractor. There was a delay by its contractor, which offered to attend to carry out the works. This took place between January and February 2019. During the visit, the contractors cut the garden to the back, front and side of the resident’s property to make the area more manageable.
14. The landlord explained it had considered and investigated several garden maintenance options. These included: clearing the grounds and recovering the cost from residents, following which they could then manage their own individual sections; or maintaining the grounds and charging residents via service charges, which would include the cost of initial clearance and subsequent maintenance. These options were to be discussed with each tenant. The process was likely to take some time and, as a result, any works to the garden would start after the summer months.
15. The landlord advised the resident that, if she was still dissatisfied, she could escalate her complaint within 10 working days of receipt of the response.
16. In an internal email, dated 3 October 2019, the landlord noted that the resident wished to escalate her complaint due to the length of time taken to resolve the outstanding works in her property.
17. In a call with the landlord on 13 February 2020, in which it apologised for the delay in escalating her complaint, the resident raised the following issues:
    1. The works raised from her stage one complaint ‘failed’
    2. She needed a heat loss survey done due to the draft in her home
    3. There were still issues with the garden areas
    4. She believed the communal electricity was linked up to her personal supply
    5. She was struggling financially and requested support
    6. She requested support with redecorating her home, such as the stripping of the wallpaper
18. On 17 February 2020 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation and advised it would respond by 12 March 2020.
19. In an update to the resident on 12 March 2020, the landlord said that it was awaiting feedback on the next steps in regard to the works and heat-loss calculation. It extended the date for its final response to 26 March 2020.
20. The landlord sent the resident its final response to her complaint on 31 March 2020.
21. The landlord did not agree that there had been delays in the works (to replace a section of the kitchen floor, renew the toilet floor covering, renew bathroom floor covering, and look into the water pressure issue in the bathroom) following her stage one complaint. It confirmed that the works to the toilet and bathroom were completed in December 2019 and, the water pressure had been found to be sufficient. The landlord noted that the thermostatic mixer shower taps in the bath were not meant to be used as a shower, but to allow the resident to be able to wash her hair. It confirmed that a full inspection was taken of the property on 27 February 2020 to make sure all repair issues were addressed. During the visit, the resident had said that she wished to decorate her home but was unable to remove the wallpaper. She was told that it was her responsibility to strip the wallpaper and this was not something the landlord could do for her. The landlord had arranged for a heat-loss calculation, but had not been able to gain access.
22. The landlord acknowledged that the work to replace the kitchen flooring was outstanding. That was because the resident had not been able to remove her appliances, or sign a disclaimer to allow the contractors to do so. The landlord advised that because of this it could not move forward with works to the kitchen flooring. When its surveyor visited the resident on 27 February, the resident had reiterated that she would not sign a disclaimer. The landlord explained that if the resident wanted the floor work to be done, the appliances needed to be moved. However, following new government guidance on the coronavirus, its staff and contractors currently could only provide essential property services to its residents.
23. The landlord confirmed that consultations would be held for the communal gardens and grounds. Once a decision was reached, the resident would be notified. It also explained that the resident’s individual electricity supply had never been linked to the communal supply, and had not resulted in additional costs on her behalf. The landlord acknowledged that the resident’s complaint had not been escalated to stage two as it should have been. It confirmed that this resulted in a delay in progressing the complaint and the complaint was passed to the appropriate team once this error was identified. The landlord apologised for this and offered her £150.00 compensation for this service failure.
24. The landlord confirmed that this was its final response to the complaint and, if the resident remained unhappy, she could contact this Service.

Assessment and findings

25. The landlord is responsible for maintaining and repairing the structure and exterior of the building, and communal areas. As per its website, tenants are responsible for some of the repairs and maintenance of their home, including: maintaining and renewing internal decoration; undertaking minor plaster repairs; looking after and replacing sink plugs, tap washers, toilet seats and lids, shower hoses, shower heads; looking after and replacing floor coverings and carpets; and pruning and maintaining all shrubs, trees and grass within their private garden. It states many of its customers receive cleaning and gardening services for which they pay a service charge.
26. The landlord:
    1. completed works to the communal garden between January and February 2019;
    2. inspected the bath, raised works to the flooring in the kitchen and bathroom and recommended further investigation of the water pressure in June 2019;
    3. completed the works to the toilet and bathroom, and confirmed that the water pressure was sufficient in December 2019;
    4. arranged to attend on 24 February 2020 for a heat-loss calculation to be completed but was not given access; and
    5. inspected the works on  27 February 2020, took damp meter readings, confirmed that it could not strip the wallpaper for the resident, and confirmed it could not re-attend to do the flooring unless the resident removed her appliances or signed a disclaimer to allow the contractors to do this.
27. The landlord had already completed (a) and (b) as detailed above, prior to the resident’s complaint of 3 July 2019. It also apologised that some works (c) had not yet been raised and confirmed this would be done. These were completed in December 2019. Following the resident raising further concerns in her complaint escalation, the landlord completed (d) and (e). It also confirmed that the communal lighting was separate to the resident’s personal electricity supply, and there is no apparent evidence contradicting the landlord’s explanation.
28. As per the above, the landlord completed all the required internal work raised by the resident, with the exception of the kitchen flooring and heat-loss calculation. However, these two jobs were not completed because the contractors could not gain access, or because the kitchen appliances were still in place. The landlord’s complaint responses responded to each of the resident’s internal repair concerns, and showed that it had taken reasonable steps to complete the works. If there were works which were not required, such as to the bath, the landlord provided the resident with an explanation.
29. In respect of the arrangements for maintenance of the communal gardens the landlord’s stage two response repeated its stage one response that consultations would be held on the matter. The landlord acknowledged it had been aware of the issue since November 2018 and a significant amount of time also elapsed between the stage one response in July 2019 and the stage two response in March 2020. There was therefore an unreasonable delay in progressing the matter. In addition, the stage one letter identified that residents were liable for the upkeep of the communal garden due to a service charge not being in place. However, no such responsibility is identified in the resident’s tenancy agreement. The stage two response did not correct this statement.  These matters represent a service failure for which the resident should be compensated.    
30. There were also failures in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. The landlord’s complaints procedure confirms that if a resident is dissatisfied with the outcome of the stage one response, they can ask for their complaint to be reviewed at stage two of the complaint process. It will always consider a request to escalate the complaint to stage two. If it is agreed to escalate a complaint, a full review will be carried out by the senior manager within 20 working days. If it is not agreed, the senior manager will advise the resident that the complaints process has concluded and will explain why.
31. The resident attempted to escalate her complaint in October 2019, but the landlord unreasonably delayed in doing so, not escalating the complaint until February 2020. The landlord’s complaint response addressed this, and the landlord apologised and offered the resident compensation of £150.00. This was reasonable redress, taking into consideration that the landlord identified and apologised for this failure both when the complaint was escalated, and in the complaint response, and it did not have a substantial impact on the matter at hand. The amount offered was broadly in line with what the Ombudsman would expect in such circumstances.

Determination (decision)

32. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of maintenance delays.
33. In accordance with paragraph 55b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered sufficient redress for its failures in the handling of the complaint. 

Reasons

34. There were delays in progressing consultation on new gardening arrangements and advice on gardening responsibilities was not in line with the resident’s tenancy agreement.
35. There were delays in progressing the complaint but the landlord provided adequate redress by apologising and offering £150 compensation.

Order and recommendation

Order

36. The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £100 for any distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to its response to the resident’s reports of maintenance delays.
37. The landlord to confirm compliance with the above compensation order to the Ombudsman within four weeks.

Recommendation

38. It is recommended that the landlord now pays the resident the £150.00 previously offered, if it has not already done so, as this was suitable redress for the complaint handling failures identified.