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

Hyde Housing Association Limited (202120928)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120928

Hyde Housing Association Limited

17 November 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:
    1. Handling of the resident’s request to be given prior written notice of any appointments.
    2. Handling of the resident’s report that her bathroom was cold.
    3. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She has had an agreement in place for several years whereby the landlord gives her prior written notice (which includes text message and email) of any appointments, as she is profoundly deaf and has a history of domestic abuse. The prior notice avoids having operatives visiting unannounced.
  2. On 2 September 2021 the resident reported that her bathroom was cold as the radiator was situated inside a cupboard. An appointment was booked for the afternoon of 22 September 2021. However, on the morning of 22 September, after receiving a phone call from a withheld number, she arrived home to find a gas contractor waiting (he had arrived early as he was already in the area). After he had taken photos of the bathroom, the resident began to feel uncomfortable and asked that the annual gas safety check he also wanted to do, be rearranged for a later date as it was not due until December 2021. The gas contractor requested that the landlord reschedule the gas safety check via text.
  3. The landlord sent a letter confirming that the annual safety check would take place on 21 October 2021. However, the resident did not receive the letter, and was not at home at that time. The landlord rebooked the appointment for 4 November 2021, however, due to a system error no confirmation letter was sent, and the resident was not at home again. On 5 November 2021 the landlord sent an automated letter to the resident that said not allowing a gas safety check could be a tenancy breach. The resident raised a complaint about this on 16 November 2021 (a copy has not been provided for this investigation).
  4. On 2 December 2021 the landlord sent a text message to the resident asking her to book the safety check. She advised times she would be available in the week commencing 13 December 2021. However, on 3 December 2021 a gas contractor arrived at the property unannounced to do the safety check. He agreed to rebook the appointment.
  5. In an email to the resident on 3 December 2021, which appears to be a response to the complaint raised in November 2021, the landlord apologised for its miscommunication, and for the legal letters sent to the resident (only one letter has been seen in this investigation, but it appears more had been sent). It explained that the letters were sent automatically if there have been three failed appointments, and that this also triggers the landlord to send its gas contractors to visit unannounced to try to complete the check. It said, as two of the failed appointments were the landlord’s fault, no letter should have been sent. It said it would correct its records to show only one failed appointment.
  6. The resident replied to the email on 3 December 2021, complaining about the gas team’s actions. She also wanted all of the failed appointments removed from her records. The landlord has confirmed to this Service that it received the complaint, but it has not provided evidence of any response to the resident. The gas safety check was completed on 13 December 2021. On 23 December 2021, an officer from the local authority emailed the landlord with concerns the resident had raised about several issues, including the legal letters. The landlord said it would respond in the new year. No evidence of a response has been provided.
  7. On 20 January 2021, following contact from this Service on the resident’s behalf, the landlord raised a complaint about its handling of the resident’s request to have prior notice of any appointments. It asked the resident if she wanted to add any further information. The resident responded with details of her request for a radiator in the bathroom to address the coldness.  
  8. In its stage one complaint response on 17 February 2022, the landlord explained again that the legal letters had been auto-generated, and that no further letters would be sent. It said though it would not change its policy of contractors calling form withheld numbers (which it said was for their safety), it had confirmed that its contractors had an alert on their records so that no further announced appointments would be made. It offered compensation of £25 for the unannounced visit. It said, as the resident had not provided the information about the radiator within 48 hours of it requesting it, it had not included the radiator in the complaint.
  9. On 23 February 2022, following contact from the resident, this Service asked the landlord to escalate the complaint. This Service made several further escalation requests before the landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 25 May 2022. In its response it said it should have accepted the further information the resident provided about the radiator, and it awarded an additional £125 compensation for the “distress concerning the bathroom heating situation”. It confirmed that it had installed a heated towel rail and an electrical down heater on 10 May 2022, and that it was also ensuring that it sent text messages before appointments. 
  10. The resident contacted this Service as she did not believe that the compensation was proportionate to the level of impact the landlord’s actions had had on her mental health. She felt that she had been discriminated against, due to her hearing disability. She also felt that the landlord had not adequately addressed the delay in dealing with her radiator request. She said she was still not receiving all letters from the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

  1. The resident has said that she feels that the landlord discriminated against her because of her disability, and that its actions led to a deterioration in her mental health. The Ombudsman cannot determine whether the landlord’s actions amounted to disability discrimination or draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is an accordance with paragraph 42 (g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure. However, consideration has been given to the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord. The Equality Advisory and Support Service can provide guidance and advice on concerns about possible disability discrimination. They can be contacted via their website at www.equalityadvisoryservice.com, or by phone on 0808 800 0082.
  2. When the resident provided the landlord with more information about her complaint, in February 2022, she said that the landlord had ignored her previous requests, over a number of years, to have a radiator installed in the bathroom. There are time limits for the Ombudsman to investigate complaints. This investigation centres on the period from September 2021, when the landlord first inspected the bathroom with a view to installing a radiator. This is in accordance with paragraph 42 (c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.

Handling of the resident’s request to be given prior written notice of any appointments.

  1. It is notable that the landlord complied with the resident’s request for prior written notice of appointments up until September 2021. As the gas contractor was in the area on the morning of 22 September 2021 (and the resident’s appointment was in the afternoon), usually it would not be unreasonable for a contractor to ring or visit a resident’s property on the chance that the appointment could be carried out earlier than agreed. However, in light of the arrangements about appointments, it was not appropriate for the contractor to do so on this occasion. It was reasonable that the gas contractor wanted to do the annual gas check while he was there, as this would be a cost effective way of dealing with two issues in one appointment. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have given the resident prior written notice of this too, and there is no evidence that it did so. The landlord also recorded this appointment as a no access appointment, rather than a request to reschedule the appointment. It acknowledged in its complaint responses that was incorrect for it to have recorded it as such.
  2. When the resident asked to reschedule the gas check, the gas contractor took appropriate steps to ask the landlord to arrange a new appointment. Though it was reasonable that the landlord confirmed the appointment by letter (as its agreement was to provide written confirmation of any appointments) on this occasion the resident did not receive the letter, and so a second no access appointment was recorded on 21 October 2021. That one was through no apparent fault of the landlord or the resident. The landlord booked another appointment for the 4 November 2021, but due to a system error, which the landlord was not aware of at the time, no letter was sent. As three no access appointments had been recorded at that point (none of them through any fault of the resident), the landlord’s automatic process triggered intensified efforts to conduct the safety check via legal warning letters and an automated legal letter to the resident and triggered the gas contractor into making unannounced visits to properties, in an attempt to complete the gas check.
  3. As the landlord has a legal obligation to perform an annual gas safety inspection, it is reasonable that it has such a system in place to ensure the inspections are carried out. However, in this case the landlord had incorrectly recorded the first appointments as no access, and, while it did know it at the time, the second and third visits had not failed due to any action by the resident. The third no access was due to the landlord’s own system errors. Accordingly, while the safety check escalation process was a sound one, the landlord’s errors incorrectly triggered it. Receiving legal warning letters can be a distressing event for most people regardless of their circumstances, and in this case the resident’s situation meant that additional unannounced visits would have understandably added to her distress.
  4. Furthermore, the gas safety escalation process, by its nature, was counter to the arrangement the landlord agreed with the resident, insofar as it would potentially result in unannounced visits – something she was making clear efforts to avoid. In agreeing to the resident’s arrangement the landlord either failed to amend the gas safety process so that she would not receive unannounced visits (admittedly, this is something that may not have been technically possible), or failed to advise the resident of the potential exceptions to the agreed process for unannounced visits to her. In the circumstances of this complaint, this oversight or failing contributed to the impact of the landlord’s mistakes.
  5. In its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the mistakes that arose. It explained how they had happened, and recognised that they had caused the resident anxiety and distress. However, the compensation it offered, £25, cannot reasonably be said to be proportionate to the impact of the mistakes in the context of the resident’s particular circumstances, which made the impact greater than would possibly the case for other residents. The level of compensation was not in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, and therefore left the complaint about the unannounced visits and handling of the gas inspection unremedied and unresolved. That was a failing.  

Response to the resident’s reports that her bathroom was cold.

  1. When the resident reported that her bathroom was cold as the radiator was located in a cupboard, the landlord raised this as a repair (which the gas contractor later told the landlord it should have raised as a survey rather than a repair). The landlord’s website says it responds to non–urgent repairs within 20 working days. It does not give a timeframe for responding to survey requests. However, it did attend within the 20 working day timeframe specified for non-urgent repairs. Despite it being raised as a repair not a survey, the gas contractor took appropriate steps to take photos of the bathroom and the radiator, and forwarded them to the landlord so that it could take appropriate action. At this stage the landlord should have made a decision about what action it would be taking to resolve the problem and kept the resident informed. However, it failed to do so. 
  2. When the resident asked for the radiator issue to be added to the stage one complaint in January 2020, not only did the landlord fail to add it to the complaint (which will be addressed in the complaint handling section of this report) it told the resident to report it as a repair. It failed to acknowledge that the resident had already reported the issue in September 2021, that it had been wrongly recorded as a repair instead of a survey, and that the gas contractor had provided the landlord with photographs of the issue. In its stage two complaints response the landlord acknowledged that it should have addressed the radiator in its stage one complaint response, and confirmed that the issue had not been resolved until 10 May 2022 (eight months after the resident reported it). As the landlord was unable to move the radiator from the cupboard it installed a heated towel rail and heater in the bathroom. Given the situation with the radiator placement, these appear to be reasonable and proportionate solutions.
  3. Nonetheless, the eight month delay was not reasonable by any standards, and encompassed the whole of the winter period for that year. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord apologised to the resident and offered compensation of £125. However, in the absence of any clear evidence explaining why the resolution was delayed so significantly, the £125 compensation was not proportionate in the circumstances, meaning that this aspect of the resident’s complaint was not fully resolved by the landlord.  

Complaint Handling.

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy says it has a two-stage formal complaints process, and that residents can also chose an informal complaint response rather than a formal complaint investigation, where a resolution will be provided within five working days. If the informal complaint is unsuccessful, either because deadlines are missed or the customer is dissatisfied, it will be escalated to a formal stage one complaint for investigation. It aims to respond to stage one complaints within ten working days and if a complaint is escalated to stage two it aims to give a decision on the review within 20 working days, but may take up to a further ten working days, in which case it will inform the resident and provide a new date.
  2. Despite requests from this Service for clarification, the landlord has not confirmed whether the complaint the resident raised on 16 November 2021 was dealt with formally or informally, or provided a copy of the complaint. However, in line with its complaints policy, if it was dealt with informally, as no response was provided to the resident within five working days it should have been escalated to a formal stage one complaint, regardless. Once it was dealt with as a formal stage one complaint, the response should have included details on how the resident could escalate the complaint to stage two of the complaints process if she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. However, the response did not include this information. Furthermore, on 3 December 2021 when the resident made it clear that she was not satisfied with the response and requested that a formal complaint be raised, although the landlord has confirmed to us that the complaint was passed to its safer homes team, it has provided no evidence of it raising a formal complaint or of it providing any further response to the resident, even when an officer from the local authority contacted it on behalf of the resident in December 2021.
  3. Following intervention by this Service, the landlord took appropriate steps to raise a complaint on 20 January 2022 and advised the resident when it needed to extend the response deadline. However, when the resident added further information about the radiator and the cold bathroom to the complaint on 4 February 2022, it failed to add this information, even though it had responded on 10 February 2022 to say it would investigate the issues the resident raised. In its stage one complaint response the landlord said this was because its complaints policy said any further information should be received within 48 hours of the complaints acknowledgment being sent. However, reference to this has not been seen in the landlord’s complaint policy.
  4. The landlord appropriately acknowledged that it should have added the information about the radiator and cold bathroom to the complaint. However, it took three months to issue its stage two response following the Ombudsman’s request for it to be escalated 23 February 2022.  Although its complaint acknowledgement did appropriately apologise that there would be a delay in issuing the stage two response, it failed to address or compensate for the delay, or any of the other complaint handling failings identified in this investigation. Overall the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint was poor. It acknowledged some aspects of this, but not all, and failed to offer an appropriate remedy to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its:
    1. Handling of the resident’s request to be given prior written notice of any appointments.
    2. Response to the resident’s reports that her bathroom was cold.
    3. Complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this letter the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £550. This is comprised of :
    1. £200 for its handling of the resident’s request for written confirmation prior to any appointments.
    2. £250 for its handling of resident’s report that her bathroom was cold.
    3. £100 for its maladministration in respect of its complaint handling.
  2. These payments are inclusive of the compensation already offered by the landlord during its complaint investigations, which should be deducted from the total if they have already been paid.
  3. Evidence of payment must be provided to this Service by the four week deadline.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should consider clarifying to the resident under what circumstances she may receive unannounced visits, in order to manage her expectations. It should also review its processes (including its contractors) to ensure that communication preferences and arrangements are followed, and whether appointment notifications can be sent by alternative channels to avoid them being lost or missed (such as by both email and text message).