Hyde Housing Association Limited (202121437)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121437

Hyde Housing Association Limited

18 October 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 to the property, including the kitchen, bathroom and guttering.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

2. On 7 April 2021, the resident, who is an assured tenant, raised a formal complaint with the landlord regarding several repairs that she had reported that remained outstanding. She said that, on 10 March 2021, she reported an issue with the bathroom, as there was insufficient tiling around the shower. This caused the walls around the bath to become damp. In addition to this, following an unrelated repair, the bath panels were damaged and the resident requested that these were fixed along with a broken shower curtain rail. The resident also raised concerns that she was having to constantly chase repairs and that the landlord’s operatives were unsympathetic to her situation.
3. The landlord gave its stage one response on 14 September 2021. It apologised for the delay in response and agreed that it had let the resident down in regard to fulfilling repairs. The landlord offered £100 compensation (£50 for time, trouble, distress and inconvenience, and £50 for the delay). However, it offered no reassurance that it would carry out the work and did not address the outstanding repairs. The resident subsequently contacted this Service and, on 18 December 2021, this Service informed the landlord that the resident had been in contact regarding the issue.
4. On 21 January 2022, the landlord spoke to the resident and confirmed that the outstanding issues were: the tiling in the bathroom, reinstatement of smoke alarms, replacement of extractor fans, queries regarding the lifespan of the kitchen, and the delays and poor communication that the resident had experienced.
5. The landlord’s final response was issued on 11 February 2022 in which it addressed all of the above issues. It asserted that all internal works had been completed with the exception of follow-on works for the guttering and the reinstatement of the smoke alarms. It agreed that it did not respond to the repairs when it should have, that it did not communicate or offer any reassurance, and that the general communication (both internal and external) had been poor. The landlord apologised for the frustration caused and increased its offer of compensation to £400. The resident has advised this Service, however, that she remains dissatisfied with the compensation offered.

Assessment and findings

Policies & Procedures

6. Section 6.1 of the landlord’s Responsive Repairs Procedure states that “anytime repairs” are to be completed within 20 working days. “Anytime repairs” are defined by the landlord as “any responsive repair that is not an emergency repair”.
7. Section 9.6 of the Complaints and Compensation Policy states that the landlord will “aim to respond to stage one formal complaint investigation cases within ten working days (two weeks) of receipt of the complaint. In some cases, it may not be possible to provide a response in this timescale. If [the landlord needs] extra time to complete the investigation, [the landlord] will explain this to the [resident] and give a date for [its] response. This will be no later than a further ten working days”.
8. Section 11.2 of the Complaints and Compensation Policy states that compensation payments may be offered where the landlord has failed to deliver a service to the “advertised standard”, in recognition of the time and trouble taken by the resident, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident, and to “reflect where [the resident] has suffered a loss because of a service failure by [the landlord]”.

Scope of Investigation

9. The resident has advised this Service that she continues to experience issues with the landlord’s repair service, particularly where communication is concerned. She has stated that repairs continue to be scheduled without her knowledge. As this relates to a matter which is outside of the scope of this investigation, the Ombudsman has not commented on this. Should the resident wish to have this investigated, however, she should raise this as a new complaint with the landlord in the first instance.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the property

10. Once repair issues have been reported, the landlord has responsibility to address the issues within an appropriate timeframe. Section 6.1 of the landlord’s Responsive Repairs Procedure states that “anytime repairs” are to be completed within 20 working days. “Anytime repairs” are defined by the landlord as “any responsive repair that is not an emergency repair”.
11. The resident reported issues relating to bathroom tiles on 10 March 2021. The landlord attended the property on 7 April 2021; however, the operative who attended had been given the wrong information regarding the nature of the repair and was therefore unable to proceed with the required work. Additionally, as a result of an unrelated issue, the bath panels to the bathroom were removed/damaged, and the resident had asked for this to be fixed as well as issues regarding the shower rail and curtain. The landlord confirmed that these were scheduled for repair on 27 April 2021 but this repair was not undertaken. As such, both repairs were not completed within the specified timeframes.
12. It is vital that the landlord ensures that any contractor or operative attending a property to conduct a repair has the correct information detailing the nature of the repair. This allows them to be fully prepared to carry out the necessary work that the resident has been waiting for. In the case of the appointment on 7 April 2021, the operative understood that there was a broken tile that needed replacing, when a whole area of tiling was instead required.
13. Failure to ensure that the operative was prepared for the correct work caused unnecessary delay in the repair being completed. In regard to the scheduled repair on 27 April 2021, the landlord provided no reasoning or explanation for why the repair had not been carried out. If unable to attend a property for any reason, the landlord should make the resident aware and offer an explanation. Failure to do so can cause the resident to feel as though their complaint is not being taken seriously. The landlord recognised this in its final response and acknowledged the frustration that this would have caused. It also recognised the additional effects of this, such as the resident having to book additional time off work in order to be present for repairs.
14. The landlord eventually attended the property to address the bathroom tiles on 10 January 2022. A new section of tiles was replaced in order to prevent the walls from becoming damp. The landlord added to this repair by re-attending on 2 February 2022 to add further tiling following concerns voiced by the resident. The landlord also fixed the shower rail and provided a shower curtain at this time. However, the resident was unhappy that the new tiles were a different shade to the previous ones and felt that the whole area of tiling should be replaced to match.
15. Internal communications show that the landlord did look into this for the resident, but it was determined that it would not do this as the tiling was in proper working condition. It also eased the resident’s concerns by explaining that over time, the colour of the tiles would fade to match the older ones. The decision not to replace the whole area of tiling was not inappropriate as the landlord’s obligation was only to ensure that the tiles were in a reasonable condition. Given that the original tiles in place were not damaged, the landlord would not have replaced these.
16. Whilst the issues had been fixed, there was an excessive amount of time between the issues first being reported by the resident and completion. One of the key reasons for the delay was poor communication. The resident advised in her formal complaint (7 April 2021) that she had been passed around between the landlord and contractor whilst attempting to chase repairs. This was due to internal confusion regarding the booking of repairs, and the details relating to said repairs.
17. The landlord must ensure that there are clear lines of communication between all departments, contractors and sub-contractors in order to ensure that all personnel responsible for repairs are of the same understanding and have the same information at hand. This prevents not only confusion and avoidable obstacles that prevent the repair from progressing, but it also prevents unnecessary involvement by the resident in having to be transferred between multiple people in order to seek answers and chase repairs. Avoidance of these issues allows for a quick and efficient progression of the repair, inevitably minimising delays.
18. Moreover, where the landlord’s communication was concerned and following the resident’s formal complaint, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have outlined its intentions as to how it would progress the repairs and ensure their completion. It is important for the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations, and its complaint responses are an ideal opportunity to do this. Failure to manage expectations can be detrimental to the landlord/tenant relationship as it can potentially convey to the resident a feeling of being forgotten about. By giving clear target dates, explanations for missed appointments, and details on how things would be progressed, the landlord could potentially manage the resident’s concerns and put her mind at ease. However, following the resident’s complaint, there was no further mention of repairs until the landlord had been contacted by this Service in December 2021.
19. Following contact from this Service, the landlord began to make outstanding repairs. It is also clear that further issues were raised, such as a leak from the gutter which affected the kitchen ceiling and led to smoke detectors being isolated, and issues with the extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen. However, the landlord has not provided the correspondence to show when it was made aware of these issues, nor has it provided correspondence of any discussions relating to that repair.
20. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. This may be particularly important where a complaint is later referred to this Service for investigation, to enable a landlord to evidence the steps it has taken.
21. In its final response, the landlord confirmed that the kitchen ceiling had been re-plastered where there had been damage from damp on 7 January 2022. It also confirmed that it had checked the extractor fans on 28 January 2022, and advised that they were not extractor fans but open-air vents. It confirmed that they were working as intended. Whilst it was good that the landlord was attending issues, as noted above, this Service is unable to determine whether these were addressed within reasonable timeframes as it is not clear when they were reported.
22. The landlord wrote in its final response that the only outstanding work at that time was the reinstatement of the smoke alarms, and that it wanted to ensure that the potential leak from the guttering was resolved before doing this. The landlord explained in the response that a job had been raised to repair the gutters but that it was waiting for further scaffolding to be erected at the front of the property in order to do so. It is evident from the correspondence provided, however, that there was further confusion relating to the erection of scaffolding to the front of the property. While the landlord’s contractor confirmed in February 2022 that there was no active leak, this Service is unable to determine whether anything further was required to clear the gutters. According to the resident, it was not until 24 May 2022 that the smoke alarms were reconnected.
23. Whilst this Service has been able to reach a determination based on the evidence provided, the omission of said correspondence and evidence has caused difficulties in the investigation of this case. This has been taken into account in arriving at the determination.
24. The substantive concern brought to this Service by the resident was that she believed the landlord’s offer of compensation was not reflective of the distress and inconvenience she had been caused. The landlord’s final response (11 February 2022) acknowledged several failings, and did not dispute the concerns that the resident had raised. It also offered sincere apologies for where its service had fallen below standard. The landlord not only recognised its failures in relation to the delay in providing repairs, but it also recognised its communication failures. It sought to put things right by finalising the outstanding repairs and offering £400 compensation.
25. Consideration has been given to the landlord’s internal correspondence, however, which details the breakdown of the compensation award made and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was not sufficient in reflecting the extent of the impact on the resident. While it might have been reasonable for the landlord to offer £150 for the delays in completing repairs, prior to the further delay in reinstating the smoke alarms, it also only sought to offer £50 for the resident’s time and trouble, £50 for its poor communication, and £100 for the distress and inconvenience. Noting that this matter was ongoing for more than a year, and that the resident had to involve this Service, this was not proportionate. This Service is unable to conclude that the landlord did enough to put matters right.
26. Section 11.2 of its Complaints and Compensation Policy states that compensation payments may be offered where the landlord has failed to deliver a service to the “advertised standard”, in recognition of the time and trouble taken by the resident, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident, and to “reflect where [the resident] has suffered a loss because of a service failure by [the landlord]”. For maladministration of this nature, this Service’s remedies guidance indicates that amounts within the range of £100 to £600 may be appropriate. In light of this, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to increase its award of compensation to better reflect the circumstance.
27. For completeness, as the resident had queried when the kitchen was due for renewal, it was reasonable that the landlord provided her with its future plans. This Service recognises that the condition of a kitchen will often need to be assessed, and consideration given to the life of the kitchen, before being added to any planned works programmes.

The landlord’s complaint handling

28. When the resident made her formal complaint on 7 April 2021, the landlord acknowledged it and advised that it would be late responding. It explained that there would be a delay of roughly four to six weeks in responding. However, section 9.6 of the Complaints and Compensation Policy states that the landlord will “aim to respond to stage one formal complaint investigation cases within ten working days (two weeks) of receipt of the complaint. In some cases, it may not be possible to provide a response in this timescale. If [the landlord needs] extra time to complete the investigation, [the landlord] will explain this to the [resident] and give a date for [its] response. This will be no later than a further ten working days”.
29. It was appropriate for the landlord to set expectations and made clear its intentions in regard to responding to the resident’s complaint. It identified that it would need more time than suggested in its policies and procedures and subsequently made the resident aware of this. However, the landlord did not adhere to the timeframe that it had set out and, as such, the response was provided more than five months following the complaint.
30. Failure to adhere to timeframes for responses is a service failure. This failure is further exacerbated by the fact that it had given an extended target timeframe to the resident, yet it exceeded this timeframe by a considerable length. This Service acknowledges that on occasions there will be circumstances that mean a complaint response cannot be provided by the initial time given by the landlord. This is usually to be expected when complaints are complex and further investigation is required. Therefore, it would be reasonable to expect that a landlord would contact the resident, explain in detail the reasons for the delay, and provide a new timeframe whereby the resident would expect to receive a response. However, the landlord did not provide any updates nor reasoning for why it had exceeded the promised timeframe.
31. The landlord’s final response was detailed and covered all aspects of the resident’s complaint, but it did not share its compensation breakdown with the resident. This was something that the resident had requested following the response, but was not shared. It is important for the landlord to provide a breakdown of compensation, as providing clarity is an important part of dispute resolution. This allows the resident to understand how each aspect of their complaint had been remedied, and how the landlord had arrived at the amount that it considered reasonable to offer.
32. In view of the landlord’s internal calculation nonetheless, and noting the cumulative amount offered, this Service is not satisfied that the landlord made an award in recognition of its poor complaint handling. Therefore, while the landlord did reflect on the impact its complaint handling had on the resident, it has not been concluded that it took steps to put things right.

Determination

33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure with regards to the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property, including the kitchen, bathroom and guttering.
34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure with regards to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

35. In recognition of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to increase its award to £600. This has been calculated as:
    1. £200 for the landlord’s delay in completing repairs;
    2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience;
    3. £150 for the time and trouble; and
    4. £100 for the poor communication.
36. In recognition of the landlord’s complaint handling, it should award the resident £100.
37. The landlord should provide this Service with evidence that the above amount (£700) has been paid to the resident within four weeks of this determination. This amount should replace the £400 originally offered to the resident.

Recommendations

38. The landlord should review its record keeping processes to ensure that all notes, work orders and details of visits from its contractors and operatives are easily and readily available should they be needed in the future, in order to provide an audit trail.
39. It should also review its internal communication procedures in order to ensure that any operatives who attend properties for repairs are fully aware of, and prepared for the task at hand.