Hyde Housing Association Limited (202015762)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015762

Hyde Housing Association Limited

17 August 2021


Our Approach

 

  1. 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 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.

 

  1. 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 various repairs needed to the resident’s property.
  2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the design of the kitchen.
  3. The landlord’s response to a report of a leak in June 2021.

 

Jurisdiction

 

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the 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.

 

  1. The resident has referred to the poor design of her kitchen, as well as a further leak that she found in June 2021. Both of those issues were raised following the exhaustion of the landlord’s complaints procedure in January 2021.

 

  1. The Ombudsman is not able to comment on specific issues which have not been considered through the landlord’s complaints process in the first instance. This is because we need to be sure that the landlord has had an adequate opportunity to investigate and resolve the issues internally before we intervene.

 

  1. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure.

 

Background and Summary of Events

 

  1. On 15 June 2020 the landlord’s pest control contractor attended after the resident had reported seeing mice in the property. The contractor put out bait boxes. They then reattended on 6 July 2020 and found a large hole behind the dryer, where it was thought the mice were entering. Some of the bait had been eaten. They moved the bait boxes behind the dryer.

 

  1. The contractor then attended again on 27 July 2020 as the resident was still reporting seeing mice in the property. They noted the mice were not eating the bait. The contractor put down a different type of bait.

 

  1. Then on 20 August 2020 the contractor attended again. They said no bait had been eaten from two trays and five bait boxes, and they could not see any evidence of mouse activity.

 

  1. The resident complained to the landlord on 27 August 2020. She said she was unhappy with the time it had taken to block up the mouse holes. She said the landlord’s contractor had attended that day for the third time without any information about what needed to be done, and then went to get his tools but did not come back. She was unhappy that she had received a text message from the landlord which said that the operative had confirmed the repair was complete, when this was not the case. She asked the landlord to arrange an appointment to do the work as soon as possible. She also asked if she could have a named contact at the landlord as she was vulnerable. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint the same day.

 

  1. In early September 2020, the resident advised the landlord that there was a leak in the roof. The landlord’s contractor attended on 9 September 2020 but decided that scaffolding was needed to identify the source of the leak. This was ordered.

 

  1. The landlord then called the resident on 18 September 2020 to discuss her complaint. She told the landlord that due to her medical problems, she would like a single point of contact at the landlord for repairs. The resident also advised the landlord that she had raised the point about mice in the property since July 2020, and the repair contractor had attended on three occasions but had not completed the repair. She also told the landlord that her kitchen was in a poor state of repair. The landlord suggested arranging a joint visit with a surveyor and the repair contractor so they could discuss the resident’s various concerns, which the resident agreed to.

 

  1. On 30 September 2020 a joint visit took place at the resident’s property with the landlord’s surveyor, pest control contractor and repairs contractor. Following the visit, the landlord’s surveyor sent an internal email with the following points:

 

  1. The pest control operative had identified that there were gaps behind the tumble dryer which had given the mice access to the resident’s kitchen.

 

  1. The surveyor had arranged for the repairs contractor to fill in the gaps.

 

  1. The pest control operative had also identified another possible access point behind the toilet, but they would monitor this to see if the pest proofing carried out in the kitchen resolved the problem. If it continued, they would open the plasterboard wall behind the toilet to see if there were any breaches in that area allowing access for mice – if so, these would also be filled in.

 

  1. There would be follow-on works to the kitchen, but this would be raised as a separate order. Whilst he was there, the resident showed him that her toilet had been affected by the roof leak, so he would also address this.

 

  1. The landlord’s repairs contractor then filled in the holes behind the dryer on 30 September 2020. They said the roof leak would need to be addressed before the remedial work to the toilet could be carried out.

 

  1. The resident emailed the landlord on 19 October 2020 to make a further complaint. She advised that she had reported a leak from the ceiling in her toilet on 4 September 2020, but it had still not been resolved. She said she had been informed on a number of occasions that scaffolding would go up so the landlord’s contractor could identify the source of the leak, but that had not happened. She said the water had continued to leak, the walls smelt of damp, and the paintwork had been damaged. Furthermore, the leak had spread to an inside cupboard in the hallway, and to her neighbour. The resident explained she was concerned about the asbestos in the ceiling paintwork being disturbed by the leaking water. Finally, she questioned why the block of flats opposite her property had had scaffolding put up on 15 September 2020, yet she had not.

 

  1. The landlord was advised that the scaffolding was due to go up on 19 October 2020, but this was then delayed because of mechanical failure of the scaffolding contractor’s lorry. The date was moved to 23 October 2020, with the roofing contractor booked in for 3 November 2020.

 

  1. The resident emailed the landlord on 2 November 2020 to say how dissatisfied she was with how the roof leak had been dealt with. She advised there was mould under the peeling wallpaper and the roof smelt of damp. The resident told the landlord the issue was causing her unnecessary stress, anxiety and inconvenience. She also asked the landlord to confirm that internal repairs would go ahead once the leak was resolved.

 

  1. On 3 November 2020, the roofing contractor attended and cleared an outlet to the roof which was blocked from debris. It was thought this was the cause of the leak.

 

  1. The landlord sent an internal email to its repairs contractor to query whether the repairs to the kitchen and toilet could go ahead, as the roof had been repaired. The repairs contractor replied on 15 November 2020 and confirmed they ideally wanted to wait until after 20 November 2020 as that was when a water test was taking place to make sure the roof repairs had worked.

 

  1. The landlord provided its Stage One complaint response on 16 November 2020. It made the following points:

 

  1. The resident had advised it previously that the landlord’s pest control contractor had attended several times, and the landlord’s repairs contractor had turned up three times to do the work, but did not seem to know what they were there for. She also advised the landlord that the contractors did not have the correct personal protective equipment or coverings for their shoes. After the resident had told the landlord this information, it arranged for a joint site visit to take place with its surveyor and representatives from both contractors. This took place on 30 September 2020.

 

  1. Following that site visit, the landlord’s surveyor raised the necessary works to be completed, and the repairs contractor attended to fill in the holes believed to be the access points for the mice. Further works to the kitchen and toilet were also raised, but put on hold because the landlord thought the roof leak needed to be dealt with first.

 

  1. It said there were unfortunately delays with having the roof repaired. This was because the company providing the scaffolding had some transport problems, and there were also delays because of the weather which may have compromised the safety of the contractor working on the scaffolding. The landlord apologised for the delays, and confirmed the roof repairs were completed on 3 November 2020. It advised the resident that a water test would be carried out on 20 November 2020 to make sure the leak had been fully resolved.

 

  1. It acknowledged there were still repairs required to the resident’s toilet and kitchen, and confirmed the name of the surveyor who would be overseeing the repairs. It also reassured the resident that a post inspection visit would be done by the surveyor to ensure the work had been done correctly. The landlord confirmed that its contractor would be in touch with the resident shortly to arrange the outstanding repairs.

 

  1. It accepted that it ought to have completed the repairs and blocked the mice access holes quicker than it did. It said the communication between parties had not been at the level it would expect, and it apologised for this.

 

  1. It offered the resident £100 compensation. This was broken down as £50 for the time taken to complete the repairs, and £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

 

  1. The landlord provided the resident with a temporary point of contact which it said it was arranging because of the resident’s medical history.

 

  1. Finally, it confirmed it had passed details of the resident’s complaint, along with its findings, to its contract managers to discuss the issues directly with its two contractors so that it could try and learn from the mistakes made. It had also asked both contractors to make sure they had the correct information and personal protective equipment when going into residents’ homes. 

 

  1. There was then some confusion between the landlord and the repairs contractor. The landlord was expecting the water test to take place on 20 November 2020, and the resident had been advised of this. However, the repairs contractor decided not to go ahead with it as there had been heavy rainfall shortly after the roof repairs had been completed, which it thought was the perfect water test. Though they did not advise the landlord or the resident of that decision.

 

  1. The resident emailed the landlord on 27 November 2020 about its response to her complaint. She questioned how the landlord could offer her compensation when the repairs had not been completed. She also said the landlord had not considered the costs she had incurred of buying deterrent items such as wire wool and other cleaning products. The resident said the landlord had not addressed the serious issue of the disturbed paintwork that occurred as a result of a leak, which she thought contained asbestos. The resident also pointed out that the water test had been aborted.

 

  1. The landlord’s surveyor advised the resident that he would be attending her property again on 7 December 2020 with the repair contractor, and the water test would be carried out then.

 

  1. The landlord issued its Stage Two complaint response on 14 January 2021. It said:

 

  1. It had checked with its contractors and they had confirmed that all works to the roof had been completed, and the only remaining repairs were some internal remedial works which would need to be carried out once the details around the asbestos in the property had been clarified. It asked her to let it know if that was not the case or she had any more problems.

 

  1. Since its Stage One complaint response had been issued, the resident had advised the landlord that the leak issue remained, she had not heard about the water testing, and had received very little contact from its surveyor.

 

  1. After looking into the roof issue further, the landlord decided in December 2020 to patch the roof. It acknowledged that it ought to have done that repair on 3 November 2020, and apologised for this. It said that further rainfall occurred after the repair, and so a water test was not required.

 

  1. As the resident had reminded it of her concerns about asbestos in the property, its surveyor contacted a specialist asbestos contractor on 11 December 2020 to request that a sample of the ceiling be taken. The landlord confirmed they were awaiting the results, before they could be in a position to carry out the remedial works within the property.

 

  1. It confirmed that although the complaint was resolved, it would remain open with the landlord until all the repairs had been done.

 

  1. It accepted the resident had waited too long for a permanent repair to take place to the roof. It confirmed that it was increasing the compensation to £300 to make up for what had happened. This was broken down as £50 for the resident’s patience throughout the complaints process, £100 for the delay in completing the works, and £150 for the distress and inconvenience this had caused and poor communication about the works.

 

  1. Further correspondence then took place between the resident and the landlord with regards to repair appointments. The resident pointed out to the landlord that there was no longer space for her to fit her dryer in the kitchen, and asked what would be happening about this. She also said that all the repairs had not been completed. The landlord accepted this and confirmed that its repairs contractor would be carrying out the required works and its surveyor had been tasked to ensure everything ran smoothly through to completion.

 

  1. The resident brought her complaint to this Service. In June 2021 she said the repairs had not been completed, because although the roof leak was repaired in 2020, she had found evidence of water leaking through again that morning. She said she had heard water dripping some months earlier and had advised the landlord that a neighbour had a leak, but this had been ignored. The resident also said that she had complained about the poor design of her kitchen, but had not received a response. Finally, she said that outstanding works in the kitchen and bathroom had not been completed.

 

Policies and Procedures

 

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy says that its contractor will attend emergency repairs within four hours, and make the repair safe within 24 hours. The repairs policy also says that for other repairs, an appointment will be arranged within 20 working days.

 

  1. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will pay up to a maximum of £50 for time and trouble in dealing with a complaint. It also says the landlord will pay up to £100 for a service delay with low impact, up to £250 for a service delay with medium impact, and up to £500 for a service delay with major impact. In respect of distress and inconvenience, the policy says the landlord will pay up to £100 where there has been low impact, up to £250 where there has been medium impact, and up to £500 where there has been major impact and includes injury to health.

 

Assessment and Findings

 

  1. After the resident reported seeing mice in the property, the landlord’s contractor attended and then returned on three further occasions to check that the bait they had laid had been eaten, and if there was any further sign of mice activity. The landlord’s actions present as reasonable in the circumstances.

 

  1. However, it seems the landlord’s contractor was then supposed to fill in the holes behind the dryer in the kitchen. They attended on 27 August 2020 but the resident said the contractor did not know why they were there, and did not have the correct tools. This would have understandably caused the resident frustration. The holes were not filled in until 30 September 2020, which was over a month after the repair was supposed to take place.

 

  1. Given the resident had raised several concerns with the landlord when she made her initial complaint, it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange for its surveyor to attend the property, to make sure it addressed all of the issues she had raised. Although there were problems identified with the toilet and kitchen at that time, they could not be repaired until the leak was fixed.

 

  1. The resident had reported the leak with the roof in early September 2020. Although the landlord’s contractor had attended, the matter was not considered urgent and scaffolding was needed in order to access the roof. There were then delays with the scaffolding company and the weather, which meant that the scaffolding did not go up until 23 October 2020. There were then further delays because the roofing contractor could not attend for a further week and a half. Meanwhile the resident continued to report a smell of damp, as well as peeling wallpaper.

 

  1. When the roofing contractor did attend, they cleared some debris from an outlet and thought that would resolve the problem. However, there was no reasoning given for why the contractor thought that rainwater was able to enter the property because of the blocked outlet on the roof. No water test was done at the time to confirm that removal of the debris had resolved the problem. This was arranged for over 2 weeks later, which was a further delay. Though there ended up being some confusion between the landlord and the contractor and the water test then did not go ahead on the date that had been arranged, despite the landlord reassuring the resident that this would take place. This was poor communication on the landlord’s part, leading to further frustration for the resident.

 

  1. Although the landlord’s repairs policy says that non-emergency repairs would be complete within 20 working days, it is apparent that the roof repairs took longer than that. Also, the removal of the debris did not resolve the issue, and the roof continued to leak. A patch repair took place in December 2020. This was around three months after the resident had first reported the leak, despite the roofing contractor attending in November 2020. The landlord accepted the patch repair ought to have taken place in November 2020.

 

  1. It is accepted that the resident was caused inconvenience as a result of the delays, because the internal repairs could not take place until the leak was identified and fixed. Ideally, the repairs would have taken place soon after the patch repair to the roof took place in December 2020. However, the resident had brought to the landlord’s attention her concerns that the leak had disturbed asbestos in the ceiling. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to look into this before carrying out the repairs, which inevitably delayed matters. This was outside the landlord’s control, as it was waiting for the sample to be examined before beginning the internal repairs. Though the resident did initially make the landlord aware of her concerns in that respect on 19 October 2020. The landlord missed this opportunity to look into the matter, and only did so when the resident reminded it of her concerns in late November 2020.

 

  1. The landlord offered the resident total compensation of £300. It offered £50 for her patience throughout the complaints procedure, which was the maximum available under its compensation procedure for time and trouble dealing with a complaint. This represents a reasonable level of redress for the delays in progressing the case through the complaints process. The landlord also offered the resident £100 for the delay in completing the repairs, which according to the compensation policy, reflected that there was a low impact to the resident as a result of the delay. Taken together with the £150 offer in respect of distress and inconvenience (which reflected that there was medium impact to the resident), the total figure of £250 was appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances. This recognised that the resident had told the landlord about the leak in September 2020, but the repair did not take place until December 2020 – and that there was poor communication from the landlord in respect of the works. It also reflected that there was a delay in respect of filling in the holes behind the dryer.

 

  1. In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events that initially prompted the complaint and the landlord’s response to those events though the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to offer redress. As the landlord has done so here, no further action is required.

 

Determination (decision)

 

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress which, in the ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about repairs satisfactorily.

 

  1. In accordance with paragraph 39 (a) of the Scheme, the complaint about the design of the kitchen is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

 

  1. In accordance with paragraph 39 (a) of the Scheme, the complaint about the June 2021 leak is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

 

Reasons

 

  1. The resident told the landlord about mice activity at her home. The landlord arranged for a pest control contractor to attend on four occasions – they laid baits, and returned to check that the activity had stopped. When the resident continued to report mice activity, the landlord arranged for another contractor to fill in holes that it was thought were allowing the mice to enter the property. That was appropriate, though there was a month’s delay in filling in the holes, and the resident also reported that the contractor had initially attended without knowing what they were supposed to do, which would have been understandably frustrating for her.

 

  1. The resident also reported a leak in early September 2020. The landlord attended, but it was found that scaffolding was needed. A proper repair did not take place until early December 2020, which was outside the landlord’s 20 working day timeframe given in its repairs policy. The landlord also accepted that its roofing contractor that had attended in November 2020 ought to have done the repair at that time. There was also poor communication between the landlord and the resident in respect of the repair, and the water test that should have taken place after the first repair.

 

  1. The landlord did not want to repair the internal damage caused by the leak until the leak was resolved, which was reasonable. However, this could not take place as it ought to have done in December 2020 (after the leak was fixed), because the resident raised concerns about asbestos in the ceiling. The landlord arranged for a sample to be taken in December 2020, and was still awaiting the results when it completed its complaints procedure, but it could have taken the sample when the resident first raised her concerns in late October 2020. Though the landlord did confirm that it would arrange the repairs once that was dealt with, which was appropriate.

 

  1. It is apparent that there were delays with the landlord carrying out the repairs and taking a sample of the ceiling to test for asbestos, as well as some poor communication from the landlord. However, it is considered that the total compensation offered by the landlord was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. This adequately reflected the distress and upset caused to the resident as a result of the delays and poor communication.

 

Recommendations

 

  1. The landlord to pay the resident £300 compensation previously offered, as the finding of reasonable redress has been made on the basis that this compensation will be paid.

 

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should complete the internal repairs needed to the bathroom and kitchen that were delayed until the ceiling sample had been tested for asbestos.