Hyde Housing Association Limited (202117794)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117794

Hyde Housing Association Limited

31 January 2023


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. Repairs to the resident’s immersion heater.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident first reported an issue with the thermostat of the immersion heater in the property in June 2017. Throughout 2017, operatives attended the property on three separate occasions to complete repairs to the immersion heater and on each occasion the heater was left in working condition. The resident had raised a previous complaint in 2017 which was about an operative not re-attending to replace a part in the immersion heater, which was resolved at the time.
  3. In November 2018, a contractor attended the property to fit parts on the immersion heater and reported that the heater was left in working condition. In 2020, contractors attended the property on five separate occasions to carry out works to the immersion heater such as: resetting the thermostat, replacing faulty elements and testing the heater. The operatives reported that the heater was left working on each occasion. The immersion element in the heater was ultimately replaced on 2 October 2020.
  4. Throughout 2020, the resident was in contact with a local MP who was assisting him with the issues he was experiencing with his immersion heater. He was having to use the day rate rather than the night rate to heat water, which was more expensive. In February 2021, the energy company provided the resident with a cost breakdown of the variance between the day and night rate from 2017 until October 2020 to show the difference in costs.
  5. On 23 February 2021, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord about the difference in energy cost. He was unhappy that due to the element in the hot water cylinder of the heater tripping during the night, he was having to switch the immersion heater on in the day to heat water – which was charged at the higher  rate than if the water was heated at night. He was seeking to claim back the difference between what he was charged and what he should have been charged if he could have used the night rate, which the resident had informed this Service was £1100 between 2017 until 2020. He later added that the issue was ongoing throughout 2019 as the heater had not been entirely fixed until 2020. He stated that the increased energy bill was due to the absence of the night rate I for the immersion heater. In addition, he was dissatisfied that the landlord had not investigated the issue sooner and, instead, its contractors ‘reset’ the thermostat during each appointment which failed to resolve the issue.
  6. On 2 November 2021, this Service contacted the landlord as the resident had received no response. The landlord disputed the complaint as it believed it had already responded in 2017.. On 26 January 2022, the landlord accepted the complaint and later acknowledged the complaint to the resident on 11 February 2022. The resident informed the landlord on 11 February 2022 that the outstanding energy bill was £1,841.74, which he provided to the landlord. The resident stated that the bill carried on beyond the completion of the works as the energy company wanted to monitor it over a period to ensure the night rate was available as normal.
  7. In the landlord’s final response to the complaint on 6 June 2022, it offered the resident £500 compensation in view of the issues with the heater and the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience which had been caused. It stated that whilst there were issues with the heaters and did not dispute that the energy company had provided the difference in charges, it had not found itself to be responsible for the entire increase in energy costs, as the issue was not consistent between 2017 until 2020 and there were time lapses in reports. It provided details of the appointments which it had attended, and stated that the heating had been left working after each attendance and therefore the issue did not appear to be consistent. It acknowledged that there were times when its communication with the resident was poor, and stated that it would ensure its customer service improved. In addition, it offered to refer the resident to a support agency for the debt that was owed to the energy company.
  8. The resident instructed this Service to investigate as he remained dissatisfied with the level of compensation that was offered, and was unhappy with the time it had taken for the landlord to respond. The resident is seeking further compensation in view of the increased energy costs he incurred due to the repair delays and the landlord’s complaint handling timeframes.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s immersion heaters.

  1. In this case, the landlord has acknowledged that the resident was impacted by the issues he experienced with his immersion heaters, and that this resulted in distress and inconvenience for him. It also acknowledged that the resident spent time and trouble trying to resolve the issue. In addition, the landlord stated that whilst it acknowledged the resident had incurred an increased energy bill which the energy company had provided evidence of, it was unclear what caused it as the issue was not consistent for the entire period based on its investigation. It therefore stated that it was not responsible for the entire difference of £1,841.74.
  2. The landlord ultimately put things right by replacing the immersion elements of the heaters in the resident’s property on 2 October 2020. In addition, it attempted to put things right by offering the resident £500 compensation and apologising for how the resident had been impacted. The landlord has also shown some learning from the complaint as it has provided feedback to the relevant departments about the lack of communication which the resident experienced. Furthermore, it offered to refer the resident to a support agency in view of the debt with the energy supplier.
  3. The energy company had provided evidence to the resident and landlord to show that the resident had incurred increased energy charges between 2017 until 2020 and compared this to previous years when the hot water system had been functioning correctly. The landlord does not dispute this evidence, and has acknowledged that the resident has an increased energy bill. However, it has stated that on each occasion when the issue had been reported, it attended and the system was left in working condition. The resident had not reported the issue on any other occasions, and in 2019 there were no reports at all. The landlord had therefore concluded that the issue had been resolved based on the lack of reports. A resident would be expected to report any issues he was experiencing, and it was therefore reasonable that the landlord believed the issue was resolved when the resident did not report further problems in 2019.
  4. Furthermore, as the landlord was not aware that the issue was ongoing during the gaps in reports from the resident, it would not be expected to compensate for the entirety of the increased bill. The landlord therefore concluded that it was not responsible for the difference in costs over the entire period. In view of this conclusion, it offered the resident reasonable compensation as a gesture towards the increased energy bill, when taking into account that the heating had been left working after each of its attendances at the property over the 2017 to 2020 period. However, the compensation does not seem reasonable overall when considering all the factors of this case and the impact which this had on the resident.
  5. It is not disputed by either party that the landlord attended on several occasions such as on 26 May 2017, 16 November 2018, 21 July 2017, 12 May 2020 and 25 September 2020; and that, following each attendance, the immersion heater was left in working order. However, from the evidence provided, it is clear that the landlord was attending the property for an issue which did seem to be reoccurring and, as such, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to investigate whether there was a root cause for the thermostat issue at an earlier stage than it did, in order to permanently resolve the issue. It not doing so impacted the resident as the issue continued intermittently throughout 2017 until 2020, and this resulted in further distress and inconvenience for the resident due to his concerns about the impact the situation was having on his energy bill.
  6. Moreover, whilst this Service was able to determine from the evidence provided when specific appointments took place, the evidence was not comprehensive in relation to when works were booked in, and it was therefore difficult for this Service to determine whether the landlord’s actions met the timeframes listed within its repairs policy for all of its attendances. However, in 2020, the landlord has two records of works being raised on 13 May 2020 and 6 March 2020, with a target date for when they should be completed by. From the landlord’s complaint responses, it is evident that it attended on 10 March 2020 and in May 2020. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that the landlord should attend an ‘anytime repair’ within 20 working days, and given that the resident was not completely without hot water, it was reasonable for the landlord to allocate the job as such. In view of this, it does appear that the landlord was attending to the works raised within the appropriate timeframe.
  7. However, it appears that not all of the appointments the landlord has discussed are recorded in its repair logs. The landlord has acknowledged that, in 2020, works were raised by the resident and it had no record of whether an operative ever attended. Furthermore, the resident disputed the landlord’s accounts of some appointments which it stated had taken place throughout the repairs process, such as disputing what works were carried out on 12 May 2020. Whilst the landlord provided an account of the appointments in its stage one response which was issued on 18 February 2022, it acknowledged that for some appointments it had no records. All of the above examples are indications of poor record-keeping on the landlord’s behalf. It is therefore recommended that the landlord conduct a review of its record keeping processes, ensuring that there is a clear audit trail for repairs, including when any contact was made and the actions taken at any appointments.
  8. In addition, in February 2020 the resident raised concerns about his energy bill to the landlord again. For context, in his previous complaint in 2017, he had also mentioned that due to the issues with his immersion heaters, he was being charged for more electricity than he should be. However, the landlord acknowledged that it did not respond to the resident’s concerns in February 2020. This was a potential opportunity for the landlord to investigate the discrepancy in the energy bill and the issues being experienced by the resident, in order to identify a permanent solution at an earlier stage. It not doing so had a significant impact on the resident, as the situation remained to be ongoing until October 2020 which was eight months after his initial concerns were raised. 
  9. Throughout this process, the resident was impacted further by the landlord’s lack of communication, which is not disputed. It acknowledged that there were several occasions where it failed to respond to the resident such as in February 2020 and on 11 March 2020. In addition, the resident spent a considerable amount of time chasing a resolution through his local MP, who also experienced poor communication on the landlord’s behalf. This unnecessarily delayed the process of repairs for the resident, and would have exacerbated the distress and inconvenience experienced by him due to the ongoing issues with the immersion heater and the increase in his energy bill. A landlord is expected to communicate with residents and their representatives effectively in order to appropriately manage their expectations, which, in this case, it is clear did not happen. Therefore, it is recommended that the landlord considers providing additional staff-training on the importance of communicating effectively with residents.
  10. When considering all of the above factors, it is evident that the resident was significantly impacted by the landlord’s service failings when handling the situation. It is clear that the landlord had opportunities to investigate the reoccurring issue further, which may have minimised the impact of the resulting energy bill. In addition, the landlord’s poor record-keeping and communication throughout the process exacerbated the impact for the resident.
  11. Therefore, it is the opinion of this Service that the Ombudsman should pay a further £100 compensation, bringing the total compensation of £600 including the £500 compensation previously offered by the landlord, if it has not already been paid. Furthermore, the landlord is recommended to review its record-keeping processes, and to provide further staff training on the importance of keeping a clear and accurate set of records for repairs. It is also recommended that the landlord considers providing further staff-training on the importance of communicating effectively with residents.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The resident raised his complaint to the landlord on 23 February 2021, in which he stated that the heating issue was resolved but he wished to claim for the difference between the energy costs that he should have been charged, in comparison to what he was actually charged. The landlord has acknowledged that it did not respond to the resident’s communication. This is a further example of poor communication from the landlord.
  2. This Service acknowledges that there may have been a miscommunication in February 2021 in relation to the resident’s complaint, as he believed his initial complaint from 2017 was still open and therefore had requested an escalation. It was reasonable that the landlord had closed the complaint in 2017 when it had been resolved, as this is a requirement by this Service so that residents are able to escalate their complaint to the end of the landlord’s process. However, it was evident that the complaint was a separate issue in comparison to the complaint from 2017 and therefore it would have been appropriate for the landlord to accurately identify this and raise the complaint at the appropriate stage to avoid any delays.
  3. The resident chased a response to the complaint with the landlord in May 2021, which the landlord raised internally. However, from the evidence provided it appears that the landlord failed to respond again. In addition, the resident then chased the complaint in June 2021 with both the local MP and the landlord. On 7 June 2021, he gave the landlord 14 days to respond to the complaint. On 8 June 2021, the landlord set the expectation that it would respond to the complaint as it acknowledged the complaint formally. It explained that it was dealing with a backlog of complaints and would be unlikely to respond within 14 days. The examples listed above all show how the resident spent time and trouble chasing a response to the complaint, due to the landlord’s lack of communication and poor complaint handling.
  4. This Service acknowledges that there may be cases where a landlord is unable to respond within the appropriate timeframes as listed in the Complaint Handling Code provided by this Service, which sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for a landlord’s complaints process. However, in such circumstances, the landlord would be expected to provide the resident with an expected date for the response in order to appropriately manage his expectations. Nevertheless, the landlord failed to respond at all, which had a significant impact on the resident and caused further distress and inconvenience.
  5. Furthermore, this Service also acknowledges that between November 2021 and January 2022, the landlord disputed the complaint as it believed that it had already provided a response to the complaint in 2017. However, this Service had informed the landlord on 7 December 2021 that it was a separate issue being raised. As such, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to respond at an earlier date, once it had been made aware, in order to avoid any further unnecessary delays.
  6. Following the landlord accepting the complaint for investigation on 26 January 2022, the landlord did not acknowledge the complaint until 11 February 2022. The landlord’s complaints policy states a complaint should be acknowledged within two working days and, therefore, as the landlord took a total of 13 working days to acknowledge the complaint, it had failed to act in line with its complaints policy. This was a further delay in its complaint handling, and would have been inconvenient for the resident who had been awaiting a response for over 12 months at that point.
  7. Once the complaint had been acknowledged by the landlord, it responded to the stage one response within 5 working days, which was within the 10 working-day timeframe as per its complaints policy. It then responded to the stage two response within 23 working days. This was three days outside of the 20 working-day timeframe as listed in the landlord’s complaints policy. Whilst this was not a significant delay in itself, when considering the previous delays throughout the complaints process, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to prioritise the resident’s complaint to ensure the response was issued on time, or to communicate with the resident in order to manage his expectations effectively.
  8. In addition, the landlord stated in its stage two response that it was only able to fully investigate service failures which had occurred up to six months prior to receiving the complaint. However, it had included the entire period between 2017 to 2020 in its stage one response, and it had therefore set the resident’s expectations that the same period would be addressed at stage two of the process. Its decision not to address the complaint in full would have led to further inconvenience for the resident, and, at this point, he had already spent a considerable amount of time and trouble pursuing the complaint.
  9. Overall, whilst the landlord responded within a more appropriate timeframe once it had accepted the complaint, it is clear that there were significant failings in its complaint handling prior to this. This impacted the resident and delayed him from being able to escalate his complaint to this Service for assessment. As such, it is the opinion of this Service that compensation of £250 would provide adequate redress for the failings identified above. In addition, it is recommended that the landlord considers providing additional staff training to its complaint handlers, so that complaints are recognised and responded to appropriately, in line with its policies and the Complaint Handling Code provided by this Service.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way the landlord handled repairs to the resident’s immersion heaters.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way the landlord handled the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £850 compensation within four weeks of the date of this letter. This is made up of:
    1. £500 compensation previously offered to the resident, if it has not already been paid;
    2. £100 in view of the landlord’s poor record-keeping and communication; and,
    3. £250 in view of the delays in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord conduct a review of its record keeping processes, ensuring that there is a clear audit trail for repairs, including when any contact was made and the actions taken at any appointments.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord considers providing additional staff training on the importance of communicating effectively with residents.
  3. It is recommended that the landlord considers providing additional staff training to its complaint handlers, so that complaints are recognised and responded to appropriately, in line with its policies and the Complaint Handling Code provided by this Service.