Hyde Housing Association Limited (202121737)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121737

Hyde Housing Association Limited

9 September 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 the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s enquiries regarding liability for repairs and replacement items under the lease agreement.
   2. The associated complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of the landlord. The property is a house.
3. The resident emailed the landlord on 4 April 2021 and stated that as the property was over ten years old, several areas required replacement as they were no longer economically viable for repair. The landlord then advised the resident that all the areas of repair she had raised were her responsibility under the lease agreement. The resident disputed this as the lease stated she was responsible for maintenance, and not replacements. She also raised concerns regarding the cost of the replacements, so the landlord signposted her to the local authority for potential support with grants towards these costs.
4. The resident emailed the landlord on 8 December 2021 as she had been unable to obtain any grants from the local authority to complete the work. She reiterated that her lease did not state she was responsible for replacement and she requested a rent reduction due to the standard of the property. She then raised a complaint to the landlord on 22 December 2021 as she did not think the landlord had provided a satisfactory response to her queries.
5. In its final response to the complaint, the landlord advised that in accordance with her lease agreement the resident was responsible for maintenance of the property. It also provided information from a solicitor on the responsibilities of shared ownership, which stated the homeowner is “responsible for all the repairs and maintenance in their home, including major structural works and major repairs”. It stated that it had provided her with the correct relevant information, in a timely manner, during correspondence on the issue. It advised her to seek legal advice if she remained dissatisfied but offered £50 compensation for the delay in the stage two complaint response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

6. The resident stated that she believes as the lease states she is responsible for maintenance, this refers to repairs and not replacement. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s comments; however, it is beyond this Service’s remit to consider or conclude the legal meaning of documents such as the lease agreement, and the scope of the exact wording used. This would be a legal matter which would be better suited to a court to decide. Therefore, this Service suggests that if the resident has concerns regarding the wording of the agreements and requires a legal interpretation of the meanings, she should seek independent legal advice on the matter. In view of this, the Ombudsman’s investigation has focused on the landlord’s communication about the residents and its own respective responsibilities under the lease rather than an interpretation of the terms of the lease itself.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s enquires about responsibility for repairs

7. On 4 April 2021, the resident initially raised her concerns that several areas of the property required replacement as they were no longer economically viable to repair, including the shed, perimeter fencing, side gate, bathroom taps, shower screen and wash basin. The landlord responded on 14 April 2021, apologised for the delayed response due to being on annual leave, and said it had forwarded her query to the leasehold department. On 21 April 2021, the landlord advised that all the areas in need of replacement were the resident’s responsibility to complete under the lease agreement. It referenced the clause in the lease that stated the resident was responsible “to keep from time to time and all times during the term of the Premises clean and well and substantially repaired maintained and decorated”. It explained that over time, due to age and wear and tear, maintenance, including repairs and replacement, would be required in the property. It also confirmed its responsibilities regarding the defect period (the first two years after the property was built), but stated that as the resident had been in the property for over 13 years, she was responsible for all repairs to the property.
8. Although the lease agreement does not state the specific repair responsibilities of the resident, it states that the landlord is responsible for maintenance and replacement of “all sewers drains pipes cables gutters wires party structures or other convivences belonging to or serving the same party”. As a result, anything not included would be the responsibility of the resident to repair and replace if required. The bathroom taps, shower screen and wash basin would all be considered fixtures and fittings, rather than part of the landlord’s responsibilities outlined in the tenancy agreement, and as such the resident is responsible for all repairs and replacement. Generally, in leaseholder properties, it would be the resident’s responsibility to carry out all repairs and replacements to fixtures and fittings serving their own property, unless explicitly stated otherwise in the lease agreement. Similarly, as the shed, side gate and fence do not fall under the landlord’s responsibilities, the resident would also be responsible for any repairs required, including replacement of these items. The landlord also advised the resident that the lease plan indicated that the resident was responsible for the boundary fence that she had reported as damaged. As a result, the landlord’s response in which it confirmed the resident was responsible for replacement of the items was reasonable, as it was in line with the lease agreement.
9. The landlord reasonably managed the resident’s queries as it promptly responded and advised the resident of the relevant clauses in the lease agreement. Its responses were consistent and it provided additional supporting evidence, including a solicitor’s definition of shared ownership responsibilities, when the resident disputed its conclusion. As the resident continued to dispute she was responsible for the replacement of the areas raised, it was reasonable that the landlord signposted the resident to seek legal advice, as the lease agreement is a legal document. It also was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns regarding the financial cost of the work and signposted her to seek support through potential grants from the local authority.
10. As explained above, the Ombudsman cannot comment on the interpretation of the exact wording of the lease. However, overall, the landlord’s response was in line with the terms of the lease agreement and its communication was clear, prompt and consistent. There was therefore no evidence of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the issue. 

Complaint handling

11. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states that it has a two stage complaint process,. The landlord will respond to both stage one and two complaints within 20 working days. The resident raised her complaint on 22 December 2021 and the landlord issued its initial response on 1 February 2022. Whilst this slightly exceeded 20 working days, delays were caused as the landlord tried to contact the resident to discuss the complaint. It was reasonable for the landlord to want to contact the resident to discuss her concerns to ensure that it understood her complaint and could respond appropriately.
12. The landlord then advised the resident on 27 January 2022 that it would respond by 9 February 2022. Overall the delays at this stage were not significant and the landlord was in regular contact with the resident during this time.
13. The resident responded the same day the landlord sent its stage one complaint response and advised there were several errors in the landlord’s response and that the landlord had not provided evidence to support its findings. Following correspondence with the resident on 11 February 2022, this Service advised her to ensure it was made clear to the landlord she wanted to escalate the complaint. It is unclear when the resident further contacted the landlord, however in an internal email on 16 February 2022, the landlord indicated it was aware the complaint had been escalated. This Service then sent the landlord a letter advising it to issue a response on 16 March 2022, as the resident advised she had not received a response. The landlord sent a stage two acknowledgement to the resident on 31 March 2022 and issued its stage two response on 9 April 2022. As a result, the landlord exceeded its stage two response time, as it took almost two months to issue a response, which caused additional time and effort to the resident in pursuing the complaint. However, the delayed response did not have an impact on the overall outcome of the complaint.
14. In line with this Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website), awards of £50 – £250 are appropriate in cases in which there has been service failure by the landlord which had some impact on the complainant, including failure to meet service standards for responses. The landlord recognised the delay in its final complaint response and offered £50 compensation in view of this. It also managed the resident’s expectations regarding a response timeframe, in its stage two acknowledgement of her complaint. As a result, the landlord has demonstrated that it has learned from the outcome of the complaint and offered reasonable redress for any distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.

Determination

15. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s enquiries regarding liability for repairs and replacement items under the lease agreement.
16. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves concerns about the associated complaint handling satisfactorily.