Hyde Housing Association Limited (202100238)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100238

Hyde Housing Association Limited

4 May 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 complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of repairs following a leak.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder of the property, a ground floor flat. The landlord owns the property, as well as the flat above the resident which is occupied by the landlord’s tenant.
3. The resident complained in March 2021 about the experiencing a leak into her bathroom from the property above which was reported to the landlord more than a week earlier. The landlord had given an appointment for the works which happened to be on a bank holiday. She called to ensure that this was correct but then it was moved forward by one week, but she wanted the appointment to be sooner. She later requested as part of her complaint for the landlord to address the mould on the ceiling of the property. She also stated the wood between suspended ceiling and wood ceiling is also damp and has mould.
4. In response to the complaint, the landlord agreed that there had been delays to its handling of the repairs and acknowledged that it had not communicated appropriately with her on the issue. It had agreed to replace plastering in the property which had been affected by the leak, but further delayed in undertaking this. It offered her £300 for its failings and but disputed her assertions that its contractor had installed plasterboards and tiles over rotting and wet plasterboard.
5. The resident asked this Service to look into her complaint about the length of time it had taken the landlord to arrange the repairs and deal with her complaint. She was also unhappy with the contractor’s workmanship.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s handling of repairs following the leak

6. The landlord’s published repair responsibilities are to attend emergency repairs within four hours, and non-urgent repairs within 20 working days. It specifies that leaks form a neighbour’s property are categorised as emergency repairs, thus this case should have been dealt with as such.
7. Although the leak was reported on 6 March 2021and identified by the landlord as an emergency repair, the contractor did not attend until 8 March 2021. This was outside the published timescale.
8. During the contractor’s appointment on 8 March 2021, they renewed the sealant around the bath. It was found, at the time, that the tiles were loose which was thought to be causing the leak into the resident’s property. They asked the tenant in the property to use a bath rather than a shower, as it was thought this would prevent further leaks to the resident’s flat until the repairs were completed.
9. A further appointment was made for the contractor to attend on 2 April 2021, though this was later delayed until 10 April 2021 due to a bank holiday. Some repairs were carried out at this time. Then the contractor returned on 22 April 2021 with a dehumidifier to dry out the bathroom. They later placed a protective cover on the walls in an attempt to stop any further leaks whilst the room was drying out and until the tiles could be attached to the wall.
10. Following this, the contractor intended to return on 5 August 2021 to complete the repairs. Though after the resident complained about this length of time, the landlord arranged for the appointment to be brought forward to 17 June 2021. Repairs began on this date and were completed on 21 June 2021.
11. The landlord accepted that the repairs had taken too long to complete. Whilst it is appreciated that the tenant’s bathroom needed to dry out before the repairs were done, it took the contractor over six weeks to install a dehumidifier in the property. The contractor then intended to carry out repairs 15 weeks after this. Whilst the landlord brought forward the original appointment from 5 August 2021 to 17 June 2021, this was still eight weeks after the dehumidifier had been installed. The Ombudsman is in agreement with the landlord that the repairs could have been carried out sooner than they were.
12. The resident was particularly concerned about the contractor’s workmanship. The tenant in the property above had told the resident the contractor had used new plasterboard over the existing mouldy plasterboard. This concerned the resident as she thought the leak would return as the plasterboard underneath was weak.
13. The landlord stated in its stage one complaint response that its surveyor had confirmed this had not happened, and that it had photos to show that the damaged plasterboard had been removed. However, it did not share those photos with the resident at the time. If it had done so, the resident could have explained why she did not agree that those photos showed that the damaged plasterboard had been removed.
14. The landlord’s file includes internal phone calls with its surveyor. The notes of a phone call that took place on 23 June 2021 state that the surveyor confirmed that the old mouldy and wet plasterboard had not been removed, and that the contractor had boarded over it. However, the surveyor pointed out that this was not in the resident’s property, and the tenant in that property had not complained about the repairs.
15. This information was not available to the landlord when it issued its stage one complaint response on 21 June 2021. However, it was known by the landlord when it issued its stage two complaint response on 15 September 2021. Despite this, the landlord incorrectly maintained that the contractor had not boarded over the damaged plasterboard.
16. The landlord’s handling of the matter caused the resident to lose confidence in the landlord’s complaint handling process. The landlord ought to have acknowledged that the resident was correct, and either provided reassurances that the repairs were still adequate (if that is what it believed) or investigated this further. This has been taken into account under the landlord’s handling of the complaint below.
17. The resident is concerned that the contractor’s decision to board over the damaged plasterboard might impact her property again in the future. The landlord arranged for the contractor to carry out a water test around the tiles and bath area on 3 September 2021. Presumably, because the tiles are in place, this means the area is currently watertight. Though it is not known if the damp plasterboard behind the tiles and new plasterboard will weaken the area over time, which is the resident’s concern. An inspection at this time would require the removal of some of the tiles, which may be unnecessary.
18. It is noted that the landlord’s surveyor was aware of the course of action taken by the contractor and did not suggest there may be an issue with this. Without evidence to support that the contractor’s repair was inappropriate and would more than likely lead to future problems for the resident, the Ombudsman cannot reasonably conclude that the repairs should be re-done.
19. The landlord offered the resident total compensation of £300 for the length of time taken for the repair, and for failing to keep her updated.
20. The resident was particularly anxious about the ongoing leak, as she was in the process of arranging to let out her property. However, the landlord has accepted that its communication was poor, and it also should have provided the resident with the relevant photos of the repairs sooner than it did. The compensation it has offered is appropriate, taking this into account, as well as the length of time it took for the repairs to be completed, and the impact caused to the resident by this.
21. Whilst the landlord did not attend within its published timescales for an emergency repair, the leak was controlled as the tenant in the property above had agreed not to use the shower until they had attended. Therefore, it seems the short delay here did not adversely impact the resident.

Landlord’s handling of complaint

22. The landlord’s complaint handling policy explains that its stage one complaint response will be provided within ten working days. If this is not possible and further time is needed, then the response will be provided no later than a further ten working days. The policy also says that when a complaint is escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process, this will be given within 20 working days, but in exceptional circumstances, the landlord may take a further 10 working days.
23. The resident initially complained to the landlord on 3 April 2021. The landlord advised her that there would be a four-to-six-week delay, due to high volumes of work. It eventually provided its stage one complaint response on 21 June 2021, which was around seven weeks after the maximum published timescale of 20 working days.
24. It is apparent that the resident was caused upset and inconvenience by this delay. She was anxious about the length of time taken for the repairs, and wanted her concerns looked into by the landlord about this. She contacted the landlord several times about the matter whilst its response to her complaint was delayed.
25. The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage two of its complaint process on 27 July 2021. The stage two complaint response was issued shortly after the maximum timeframe of 30 working days.
26. However, the landlord’s stage two response was not appropriate, as it did not take into account or acknowledge the information that it knew relating to the repair.
27. The landlord should pay compensation, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, to recognise that it took too long to respond to the resident’s complaint, and that its response was not adequate.

Determination

28. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident prior to the investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the complaint concerning the landlord’s handling of repairs following a leak.
29. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Order

30. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £150 in recognition of the failings identified in respect of its complaints handling.
31. The landlord to evidence compliance with this order to this Service by 1 June 2022.

Recommendations

32. The landlord to pay the resident £300 compensation already offered in respect of its handling of repairs following a leak, as the finding of reasonable redress has been made on that basis.
33. The landlord to contact its surveyor to establish whether the contractor’s course of action in respect of the repair was good building practice. If not, and it is thought this may cause an issue for the resident in the future, it should consider redoing the repairs.
34. The landlord to review the Complaint Handling Code, available on the Housing Ombudsman Service website, to remind itself of the Ombudsman’s expectations in respect of responding to complaints.