Hyde Housing Association Limited (202125853)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125853

Hyde Housing Association Limited

23 May 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:
   1. response to the resident’s reports of defects at her property, and
   2. complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder. The property is a two-bedroom house. The landlord is a housing association and a registered provider of social housing.
3. The resident became a shared owner on 17 March 2017. Prior to completion, she had raised a concern regarding a chip in the bath. The landlord repaired the chip in the bath before the resident occupied the property. The resident reported the chip again on 18 June 2018 acknowledging that it had previously been repaired but the repair had deteriorated and left a black mark in the bath.
4. The landlord engaged with the developer to arrange an inspection of the bath. It chased the resident several times offering appointment times between August 2018 and October 2018. On 18 October 2018, it stated that if it received no response within ten working days the work order would be closed. The resident did not respond to the landlord’s requests for inspection and the work order was subsequently closed on 1 November 2018.
5. The resident made a complaint via the landlord’s website on 16 November 2021 about a number of alleged latent defects, including her previously expressed concerns about the bath. The resident exchanged several emails with the landlord that day. The landlord said the new defects were raised outside the defects liability period. It noted that it had closed the work order for the bath repair in November 2018 following numerous attempts to arrange an appointment to inspect the bath and a final warning that, in the absence of a response within 10 working days, the work order would be closed. It stated that all internal repairs were now the shared owner’s responsibility. A further informal response was offered on 22 December 2021 but, as the complaint was not directly responded to, the resident brought the matter to this Service on 23 February 2022.
6. On 25 February 2022, this Service emailed the landlord requesting it carry out a formal investigation and the landlord issued its stage one response on 11 March 2022. It:
   1. said the resident raised the bath chip, plasterboard, kitchen cupboards and worktop issues in 2018.
   2. tried to contact the resident three times regarding the bath chip and advised the works order would be closed on 1 November 2018 due to no contact.
   3. said that it was now unable to complete any repairs due to the property being outside the defects period.
   4. recommended that the resident contact the warranty provider.
   5. advised that in order to review new items in line with the latent defects policy, it would need an independent surveyor to attend the property and send it their findings.
   6. offered £75 compensation in recognition of the resident’s time and trouble and the delays in its complaint handling.
7. Following an escalation request from the resident, the landlord shared its final response on 14 March 2022 in which it advised that it would not be changing its decision. The resident subsequently forwarded this response to this Service as she remained dissatisfied. She has informed this Service that, in order to resolve her complaint, the landlord should replace the bath and bath screen, refit the kitchen cupboards, and replace the worktops.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

8. From correspondence this Service has seen, the resident raised concerns about the bath chip in June 2018; however she did not respond to the landlord’s appointment requests. The work order raised was cancelled due to no contact. The resident again raised concerns regarding the bath chip together with new defects in August 2021. The Ombudsman would reasonably expect the resident to raise a complaint within six months of an issue occurring. This is set out in paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme. The Ombudsman recognised the resident reported the bath chip in 2018 and wanted this fixed as part of the defects period. This Service also acknowledges the resident’s comments that she did not respond within the stipulated timescales as between 2018 and 2021 she was going through a difficult time.
9. This Service will not be able to consider how the landlord responded to reports of defects in 2018; however we are able to consider the landlord response to the resident’s reports of defects in 2021.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of defects at her property

10. The defects liability period ended on 14 March 2018. The insurer provides a builders warranty which ended on 7 February 2019 and a 12 year structural guarantee.
11. The product quality defects procedure sets out the landlord’s processes for carrying out a repair due to faulty materials and products, or poor workmanship in properties under a defects liability period. If a reported fault is not a latent defect, shared owners will be responsible for rectification of faults.
12. The landlord had a duty to establish whether a fault reported within the defects liability period is a defect and if so to arrange for the developer to rectify. If a defect is reported outside the liability period we would reasonably expect the landlord to provide an explanation and the next steps the resident could take in order to remedy the issue.
13. The resident again raised the bath chip issue in August 2021 and – contrary to the landlord’s stage one response – issues relating to the bath screen, kitchen units and worktop surfaces for the first time in November 2021. She asserted that all these issues should be treated as latent defects.
14. The resident acknowledged that the defects liability period had already ended and advised that she had experienced personal difficulties during this time which affected her ability to contact the landlord; however she felt that as the chip in the bath was initially raised before completion and she considered the repair inadequate, the landlord should either repair or replace the bath. It was appropriate for the landlord to respond promptly to these reports, disagreeing and reasserting that in line with its product quality defects procedure, it is the responsibility of the shared owner to rectify these faults as the defects liability period and builders warranty had both elapsed.
15. Whilst the Ombudsman recognises the resident’s annoyance that this was a new build property and these issues occurred four years after completion, the landlord’s actions were reasonable with regard to the reports of defects. The resident will have had a surveyor check the integrity of the property prior to completion and relied on the surveyor’s report. By 2021, the landlord had no obligation to repair, refit or replace units and, in response to the resident’s concerns, it kept her promptly informed of what next steps she needed to take. It also informed the resident that it would only investigate items as latent defects if it was provided with evidence on headed paper by an independent surveyor that these issues arose from poor installation, poor workmanship or poor design. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defects in 2021 was acceptable and there was no maladministration in this regard.

The landlord’s complaint handling

16. The landlord operates an informal complaints process as well as a formal two-stage complaints process. With the informal route, upon receipt of a complaint the landlord will contact the resident within one working day and it aims to give an answer within five working days. If an informal complaint is unsuccessful either because the landlord’s own deadline is missed or the resident is dissatisfied with the outcome, it will be escalated to a formal stage one complaint for investigation. A stage one complaint will be acknowledged within two working days and a response issued within ten working days. If the resident is dissatisfied with the stage one response, they can request a review of the complaint to the next stage. A review of the complaint will be undertaken by a senior manager and a stage two (final) response provided within 20 working days.
17. The obligations of a member landlord are set out in paragraphs 9 to 12 of the Scheme. Paragraph 9 of the Scheme confirms that a member must manage complaints in accordance with its published procedure or within a reasonable timescale.
18. On 16 November 2021, the resident raised a complaint following emails from the landlord in August and September 2021 stating it would not undertake any repairs reported outside the defects liability/builders warranty period. That same day, the landlord and resident exchanged a number of emails, with the landlord maintaining its stance that it would not repair the bath, bath screen, kitchen unit nor worktop. This appeared to be an informal response which the Ombudsman notes was sent promptly to the resident.
19. The resident was dissatisfied with this response and contacted the landlord on 15 December 2021 to which it again responded informally. This was unreasonable, however, as it should have treated the resident’s dissatisfaction as a stage one complaint. This Service would not expect a landlord to continuously seek to respond to matters informally where there is a clear need to engage the complaints process.
20. The landlord’s failure to offer a response under its complaints procedure meant that the resident had to contact this Service to prompt a complaint response. It was not until 11 March 2022 – over three months after the initial complaint – that a stage one response was issued. This is not in line with its own complaints policy and resulted in a delay in the resident being able to exhaust the complaints process and to bring her matter to this Service for investigation.
21. With the above said, this Service has seen that the landlord offered the resident an apology, as well as compensation as part of its stage one response. An amount of £75 compensation was awarded in recognition of the delays in handling the complaint and the resident’s time and trouble. This level of compensation is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance and, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, proportionately reflects the detriment the delay would have caused. The Ombudsman has therefore concluded that the landlord’s response to this aspect of the complaint was satisfactory.  
22. For completeness, it should be noted that the landlord’s complaints policy does not meet the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code). This is because the Code requires a landlord to have a two-stage process which does not include an informal stage. By introducing an informal stage, the landlord has ultimately employed three steps and has not taken the first opportunity to offer a formal response. This is contrary to the advice of this Service. As such, the Ombudsman has made a recommendation below for the landlord to review its policy. A failure to do so could result in an adverse finding in future cases. 

Determination

23. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defects at her property.
24. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaint which in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves this complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

25. It would be reasonable for the landlord to inspect the resident’s property to decide if it is able to enforce the build contract with the developer. Alternatively, the landlord should reiterate its suggestion to the resident that she obtain a report on headed paper from an independent surveyor relating to the issues that she considers outstanding, and forward it to the landlord.
26. The landlord should ensure that, if it has not already done so, it pays the resident the £75 awarded in recognition of the resident’s time and trouble and the delays in its complaint handling.
27. The landlord should review the informal complaint option in its own complaints policy and ensure that its complaints policy complies with the Code.