Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Hyde Housing Association Limited (202011049)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011049

Hyde Housing Association Limited

1 February 2022


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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s response to a water leak. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a leaseholder on shared ownership terms.
  2. In summary, the resident became aware of a leak early November 2020. The landlord failed to respond to her notice of the leak until January 2021. It identified that the leak was coming from a nearby property. The leak was repaired by April 2021 and repairs to the damage to the resident’s property was undertaken after this. The resident was decanted from her property whilst works were being undertaken to it. This was arranged by the insurer.
  3. The resident notified the landlord of a water leak in early November and December 2020. The landlord did not respond to her. This service contacted the landlord on 4 January 2021 and 29 January 2021 advising that the resident had contacted it to complain that the landlord had not responded to her complaint about its ongoing handling of a water leak. This service requested that the landlord respond to the resident.
  4. The landlord wrote a letter to the resident dated 14 January 2021 advising the resident that it would investigate the issues she had raised. The landlord attended the property on 27 January 2021 for the first time to look at the leak. It was determined that the leak was from an adjacent property. The landlord drew this to the attention of the leaseholder of that property.
  5. The landlord provided a stage one complaint response to the resident on 3 February 2021. The landlord advised the resident that it had now attended and determined the location of the leak and the resident of the other property was arranging for a plumber to fix the leak. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had complained to the landlord via an online form on 5 July 2020 asking when scaffolding would be removed which it had not responded to. It also acknowledged that on 21 December 2020 the customer submitted another online form in which she reiterated her complaint about scaffolding being up for five months and that she had chased a complaint about water damage she had made on 4 November 2020 without receiving a response. Tasks were raised internally in the landlord’s system following this but were not actioned and the landlord did not respond to the customer at this time either. The landlord noted that the resident’s initial complaint was about the erection in March 2020 of scaffolding to fix another leak and the resident did not raise an issue about the leak in her own home until 4 November 2020. The landlord stated that there was confusion about the different leaks which led to its poor handling of the matter and poor communication with the resident. The landlord acknowledged that it could have responded earlier to the resident’s concerns and communicated with her more effectively. It offered £150 compensation. This compensation was made up of £50 for delay in escalating, £50 for poor communication, time and trouble and £50 for distress and inconvenience.
  6. On 23 March 2021 the resident wrote to this service to advise that her complaint had still not been escalated and resolved. On 9 April 2021 the landlord sent a further letter to the resident following a call with her. This letter set out the details of her complaint and stated that it would investigate and needed some more time to provide a full response. It advised that it would aim to provide a response by 7 May 2021. On 24 April 2021 the resident wrote to this service to advise that she was still waiting for the landlord to escalate her complaint. On 14 May 2021 the landlord sent the customer an update on her stage 2 complaint advising it was still investigating. On 27 May 2021 the landlord sent the customer its stage 2 complaint response. It stated that its stage 1 complaint was a full response and it had not failed in the service it had provided. It submitted that it did not have control over the actions of the insurer. It also submitted that the contractors in charge of the scaffolding had discussed the need for scaffolding with the resident. The landlord reiterated its offer of £150 compensation.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident claims that the landlord mishandled its response to her report of a leak in a number of ways. The key issues in her complaint are (i) that repairs were delayed because the landlord misdiagnosed the source of the leak and because of administrative delays (ii) she had asked the landlord to notify her when scaffolding would be in place and it failed to do so (iii) she had been moved by the insurer to a property 55 miles away from her home while essential works were being undertaken and (iv) the landlord mishandled her complaint.
  2. The resident submits that the leak caused significant damage to her property – which required the replacement of the kitchen and bathroom and led to toxic mould. She also submits that the matter has caused her significant distress and inconvenience.

Handling of repairs

  1. The leasehold agreement confirms the landlord’s responsibility to maintain and repair the structure and exterior of the property, reflecting its obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Section 5(3) of the leasehold agreement states that the landlord shall “maintain and repair decorate improve and renew …. the pipes sewers drains wires cisterns and tanks and other gas electrical drainage ventilation and water apparatus and machinery in under and upon the Building and the Estate.” In undertaking its repair work the landlord also has a duty to communicate with the resident in a reasonable and timely manner and provide a reasonable level of customer service.
  2. The landlord has not disputed that it had an obligation to investigate and repair the water leak. It has also acknowledged that there was a delay in it identifying the source of the leak. It has noted that it received the resident’s complaints in November and December 2020 about the leak but these were not handled by the repairs process as they should have been. It submits that this was because there was some confusion because it was incorrectly thought the resident’s issue were related to a leak at another property.
  3. The leak appears to have been repaired by 7 April 2021 and the repair work to the resident’s flat was completed after this date.
  4. The Ombudsman finds that there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the repair. It failed to investigate the leak in a timely manner and it communicated with the customer poorly. The Ombudsman considers that is likely that the landlord’s failings delayed the repairs by approximately three to four months.
  5. The resident has stated that her flat was “filled with mould” and her use of her kitchen was restricted. She submits that her “physical, emotional and mental health” was affected. The Ombudsman notes that the delay caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience.
  6. The Ombudsman notes and acknowledges that section 6(2) of the lease agreement states that:

“The Landlord shall not be liable for any damage suffered by the Leaseholder … through any defect in any fixture tank pipe wire stairs machinery apparatus or thing in the Building or through the neglect default or misconduct of any servant employed by the Landlord in connection with the Building or for any damage to the Premises due to the bursting or overflowing of any pipe tank boiler or drain in the Building except insofar as any such liability may be covered by insurance effected by the Landlord.”

  1. The Ombudsman however considers that some of the distress and inconvenience the resident suffered was not only due to the leak itself and the damage this did to the property but due to the landlord’s poor customer service and communication with the resident about the investigation and repair of the leak. The Ombudsman is therefore satisfied that it is reasonable to require the landlord to pay the resident compensation for this distress and inconvenience and has taken this into account when determining the appropriate compensation as set out below.

Erection of scaffolding

  1. The resident has complained that the landlord did not give her notice that scaffolding was going to be erected which affected her property.
  2. The Ombudsman notes that there is reference to a previous incident with scaffolding which was for unrelated works. Whilst referred to in communications, this does not form part of this complaint which relates to the scaffolding erected for the repairs to the water leak.
  3. The evidence submitted by the landlord includes an internal email in which the landlord representative who attended the resident’s property in January to discuss and investigate the leak states that he discussed that scaffolding would be erected to repair the leak with the resident and she did not object.
  4. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord more likely gave the resident notice that it would be necessary to erect scaffolding in the January meeting. It appears that the landlord did not then contact the resident to give her a specific date when the scaffolding would be erected.  The Ombudsman appreciates that this was annoying for the resident. However, there is no evidence that the scaffolding impeded her access to her flat or that she was required to make alternative arrangements because of the scaffolding. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s concerns that it was impacting on her marketing of the property to sell, however this is not something that the landlord can reasonably be expected to take into account when fixing a leak. In any case, it does not appear that there was any alternative to the scaffolding. The Ombudsman is therefore satisfied that there was no failing by the landlord with respect to the erection of the scaffolding.

Distance of decant

  1. The resident has complained that she was required to move to a property 50 miles away while the repair works were being done to her property. The Ombudsman notes that there has not been any detailed evidence submitted with respect to this part of the complaint.
  2. Under section 5(2) of the Lease the landlord has an obligation to arrange insurance for the property …[and]…as soon as reasonably practicable make a claim against the insurers”. Section 6 of the landlord’s complaints policy sets out that insurance claims are excluded from the complaints policy “as these will be dealt with separately under our insurance policy”. The complaints policy goes on to state that nonetheless the landlord “will ensure a complaint receives a response and decision, but where there is a personal injury or a legal claim, we will advise the customer of their rights to make a claim and how to progress this.”
  3. The landlord stated in its letter to the resident dated 14 May 2021 that the interactions between the resident and the insurer:

“would not be something that [the landlord] would be get involved with. Should you be dissatisfied with your experience with either the loss adjuster or [the insurer] please contact them directly to discuss. The element of service charge relating to insurance is a cover cost and does not relate to the service provided by the insurer. Again, if you are dissatisfied with their service you would need to contact them directly.”

  1. In its stage 2 letter of 27 May 2021 the landlord reiterated its position that it does not consider itself responsible for the actions of the insurer. It stated that
  2. “The element of the service charge you pay for insurance is a cover cost and is not linked to the service they provide you individually. We do not increase this cover cost to account for customer service, this is the insurance fee payable. Your relocation would have been arranged following your discussions with the loss adjuster and is not something that [the landlord] would have any influence over. If you have any concerns or have been dissatisfied with the services provided by the insurers and loss adjusters … please contact them directly.”
  3. The Ombudsman considers that it was reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to advise the resident to contact the insurer to complain. However, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s communication with the resident about the issue was unclear. Its wording on its position was confusing and it does not appear to have provided the resident with information on how to make a complaint to the insurer about its handling of her decant. The Ombudsman finds this to be a failing by the landlord.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord acknowledges that there were delays in responding to the resident’s complaint. It acknowledges that it failed to escalate her complaint to stage one at the appropriate time and submits that this was because “we are experiencing high volumes”.
  2. It is unfortunate that the landlord did not respond to the customer’s complaint until this Service intervened. There also appear to have been delays in the landlord providing the resident with a stage two complaint response. The evidence indicates that the resident indicated to the landlord sometime before 23 March 2021 that she wished the matter to be escalated to stage two, however the landlord did not send a stage two response letter until 27 May 2021. Whilst the Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord did send the resident “holding” letters advising her that it was working on its stage two response, this Service has not seen evidence that there were reasonable reasons why the landlord took so long to respond. The issues raised are not complex and did not depend on input from third parties.
  3. The Ombudsman therefore finds that there were failings by the landlord both in its response to the customer’s initial complaint and in its handling of the escalation of the complaint to stage two. The Ombudsman notes in its stage one complaint response the landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for the delay in escalating her complaint. The Ombudsman considers that this would be adequate redress for the landlord’s initial failings before the matter reached stage one. However, there were further failings regarding the escalation to stage two and the Ombudsman does not consider this is reasonable redress to also provide for these additional failures.

Compensation

  1. In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, the Ombudsman takes into account a range of factors including any distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord, and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s acts and/or omissions. It considers whether any redress is proportionate to the severity of the failing by the landlord and the impact on the resident. The Ombudsman also takes into account the evidence that has been provided. Ultimately the Ombudsman considers what would be fair and proportionate. The aim of compensation is not to be punitive but to provide redress for the impact of any failings by the landlord on the resident. In the case of compensation for distress and inconvenience, we are not able to quantify a definitive loss and the intention of such an award is to recognise the overall distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident.
  2. In this case the landlord has offered the resident £150 compensation. This compensation was made up of £50 for delay in escalating, £50 for poor communication, time and trouble and £50 for distress and inconvenience.
  3. In considering whether the £150 offered by the landlord in this case is reasonable, the Ombudsman has referred to this service’s Remedies Guidance. This sets out that awards between £50 to £250 may be appropriate where there has been “some impact” on the complainant but this was of “short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant”. Awards of £150 to £700 may be appropriate where there is a “considerable” service failure but no “permanent impact” on the resident.
  4. In this case there have been a number of failings by the landlord which occurred over a period of a number of months. Whilst the landlord may not be liable for the distress and inconvenience caused by the leak itself, the impact of this on the resident was clearly exacerbated significantly by the landlord’s failings. The landlord’s failings meant that the impact of leak was extended for a likely period of three to four months. The poor communication by the landlord meant that the resident was understandably frustrated and was uncertain that the leak actually would be resolved for a considerable period. The Ombudsman considers that the compensation offered by the landlord is not adequate and requires that the landlord pay the resident £400 compensation.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Service Scheme there was a service failure by the landlord with respect to its response to the water leak.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Service Scheme there was a service failure by the landlord with respect to its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord failed to investigate the leak in a timely manner and it communicated with the customer poorly. The landlord’s communication with the resident about her dissatisfaction with the insurer’s handling of her claim was unclear. There were failings by the landlord both in its response to the customer’s initial complaint and in its handling of the escalation of the complaint to stage two. Whilst the landlord offered some compensation in its complaint response, this did not fully recognise the full extent of the failings in this case.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £400 compensation, comprised of £250 in recognition of the failures in its response to the leak and £150 in recognition of its complaint handling failures. This incorporates the £150 already offered by the landlord.