Yorkshire Housing Limited (202114590)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114590

Yorkshire Housing Limited

1 March 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 resident has complained about the landlord’s handling of the following:

  1. a leak to her property and subsequent repairs.
  2. Repair requests relating to the toilet, patio door, carpet and overflow.
  3. Maintenance of the bin cupboard.
  4. the related complaint.

Background and summary of events

Landlord’s repairs policy

2.     The landlord’s repairs policy sets out the target timescales relating to the following categories of repairs:

  1. Emergency – We aim to provide attendance within 4 hours of the repair being reported and make safe the immediate danger. We will then attempt to complete the works within 24 hours of the initial report. Where the repair cannot be undertaken in its entirety, within the initial visit, possibly due to parts not being available or the extent of the repair required, a subsequent visit will be arranged with the customer to return and complete the repair…
  2. As an example of an emergency repair the policy lists an uncontainable water leak from water or heating pipe, tank or cistern if uncontainable. (The emergency response may consist of turning off the water supply only), or an insecure external ground floor window, door or lock.
  3. Urgent Repairs: Repairs to be completed within 7 calendar days of reporting.
  4. Routine Repairs: Repairs to be completed within 28 calendar days of reporting .

Tenancy Agreement

  1. (The tenant) to permit the landlord or his agent or authorised workmen from time to time upon a minimum of 24 hours prior written notification (except in the case of an emergency) to enter the premises during working hours and or at other reasonable times including weekends to inspect the premises, its fixtures and fittings, and to so work which might be required from time to time in order to fulfil obligations under this agreement….(2.59)
  1. Access for day-to-day repairs must be arranged directly between the tenant and the contractors. (2.60)
  2. Inspections will be carried out periodically during your tenancy by the landlord and you must provide access during working hours. (2.61)

Summary of Events

3.     The resident is a periodic assured shorthold tenant. The tenancy commenced on 28 May 2019. The tenancy is for a ground floor flat with two bedrooms. The resident has explained that there was a leak to her property from above. As a result, the property was damp, and the electrics and decorations were damaged. There were a number of additional repairs, not related to the flood, that were outstanding. She has stated that she had to chase the landlord for responses and at no point did the landlord contact her. She reports that there were multiple visits and she has had to take a number of days off work. She believes she should be compensated for the inconvenience caused to her and for having to live in a flat that was not in a lettable standard.

4.     On the evening of 20 April 2021 the resident reported water pouring through the ceiling and light fitting from the flat above where no one was home. She reported that she was having to empty the bowl collecting water every 10 minutes. The repairs log indicates that there was water damage to three rooms and multiple light fittings. In a call later the same night the resident reported that the overflow pipe from the flat above was also discharging water onto the grass.

5.     The landlord forced entry into the flat above at approximately 12.40 am and turned the water off. The flat was secured and the landlord notes indicated that follow on work was required.

6.      An emergency repair job was raised by the landlord to reinstate the lights at the resident’s home. However, by May the resident had to contact the landlord regarding the lights again. The repairs log records state that she reported that the new light fittings which were put into a damp ceiling no longer worked once the ceiling had dried out. She also raised concerns about the lack of follow on work to make good the water damage to the ceilings and walls of the kitchen, bathroom and living room. The log recorded that the landlord undertook the following works after inspection: a faulty switch was replaced; the black box repaired and the kitchen strip lighting checked.

7.      The resident has stated that she made a complaint to the landlord sometime in June/July. She referred to this complaint in a conversation with the repairs team on 14 July 2021 and the lack of response received. There is no record of the landlord receiving this complaint and no copy has been provided to this service.  

8.     A further complaint was made on 24 August 2021. This itemised the following areas of complaint: the leak and damage, repairs relating to the toilet flush handle, the patio door and overflow, the overflowing bin cupboard, and the landlord’s complaint handling.

9.     The resident explained that she had been patient but was dissatisfied with the situation she had been left in since the flood. She stated that there had been poor communication regarding appointments, with her taking time off work, only for no one to turn up. The property was still not repaired, and she was distressed and upset. She believed there had been a violation of her living conditions. She requested an immediate resolution to the repairs and financial compensation for the conditions that she had had to live in and for the general disregard for her wellbeing.

10. The landlord responded at stage one of its complaints procedure on 17 September 2021. It accepted that things had gone wrong in relation to the repairs and water damage and arranged for a contractor to carry out the outstanding repairs, inspect the water damage and make good the decorations. It offered £100 compensation to put things right. The letter stated that the overflow pipe had been fixed and the grassed areas would be inspected to assess any damage. The repairs team leader would make contact with the resident to apologise for the delay in progressing this. The letter confirmed that the landlord would contact the resident on 11 October 2021 to check on the progress of these works. The bin store was not addressed.

11. On the same day (17 September 2021) the toilet handle was fixed and the patio doors were eased and adjusted.

12. The resident was not satisfied with the response and wrote to the landlord on 29 September 2021. She confirmed that the toilet flush handle had been repaired but stated that all other items remained outstanding.  She did not believe the compensation was sufficient and pointed out that this equated to a £20 reduction per month in rent over a five month period. She believed £500 would be more appropriate at £100 per month for five months. On 5 October 2021 she chased the landlord for a response and a conversation took place on 6 October 2021.

13. The resident contacted the landlord again on 11 October 2021. She confirmed that the major repairs had been completed but listed a number of smaller issues that were outstanding. These were:

  1. The external lock of the patio door (internal lock repaired).
  2. Damage to laminate flooring. The resident also queried whether there would be mould underneath the laminate from the length of time it was wet.
  3. The decoration work had been completed but there were a number of paint splashes over windows, hob and worktops.
  4. Carpet in hallway and bedroom was pulled from hoovering.  This had been reported early in the tenancy but no response was received.

14. The landlord sent its response at stage two on 14 October 2021. This upheld the complaint and accepted that the service had fallen below that which the resident could expect. The letter set out that the Governance team were involved to help calculate an increased offer because of the condition of the flat over the last few months. The landlord confirmed it would get back to the resident when it had more information. An appointment would be made to revisit the property to remove the paint splatters.  The landlord apologised for its shortcomings. Compensation to be calculated.

Complaint handling

15. The complaint was made on 24 August 2021. The stage one letter is dated 19 September 2021 but was not sent to the resident until 29 September 2021. The landlord explained that this was an error as the writer of the letter believed it had been sent. A complaint survey was sent on the basis that the letter had been sent on 19 September. This prompted the resident to get in touch with the landlord to inform it that no response had been received. 

16. The resident sent her request to escalate the complaint on 29 September 2021.  She then chased for a response on 5 October 2021.

17. On 14 October 2021 the landlord sent its stage two response. This upheld the complaint and agreed to come back to her with a further offer of compensation.  The letter also set out the steps the landlord would take in relation to the redecoration works. It also stated that it would “work with the relevant teams to review your experiences to see what went wrong and how we can improve our processes to make sure it doesn’t happen again”.

18. The resident has confirmed that the landlord increased its offer to £150.  The landlord has not provided evidence of the offer made to the resident or provided an explanation of how the offer was made.

Assessment and findings

Leak from above

19. According to the landlord’s records the resident reported the leak from the flat above at 20.53 pm on 20 April 2021. The repair was classified as an emergency repair. The landlord had difficulty gaining access to the flat, but after its attempts to contact the tenant failed, it forced entry and stopped the water flow in the early hours. The exact time is not known, but the resident has stated that it took seven – eight hours. This was within the target timescale for dealing with this type of emergency. The works to make good took longer, with the property needing time to dry out.  Repairs to the electrics took place promptly, but these needed to be redone a month later.   

20. There were delays in the landlord making good the decorations, in part due to time needed to ensure the property had dried out sufficiently. The job was raised on 23 September 2021, five months after the leak. There is no completion date for this work in the repairs records, although it is not disputed that this work took place.

21. The landlord could have been more proactive in dealing with the damage to the resident’s home. Five months was a lengthy period of time for the resident to wait, particularly given the source of the problem had been dealt with and there was a limited likelihood of any further water penetration. There is no evidence of any offer of assistance from the landlord, such as the use of dehumidifiers or mould protection, which would provided some assurance to the resident that the matter was being taken seriously.

22. Once completed, there were issues with the quality of the work as paint splashes had been left on surfaces following the decoration. This was not picked up by the original contractor and no post work inspection appears to have taken place. The resident had to raise this with the landlord herself.  Again, there is no completion date within the repairs log, but it is not disputed that this work took place.

23. The landlord acted appropriately when made aware of the leak and took steps to rectify this and reinstate the lighting within a reasonable timescale. Its follow-on work was however slow and of questionable qualify.  There is also little evidence of any support offered to the resident.

24. The landlord’s complaint handling recognised that there were failings in the service it provided to the resident.  It apologised, undertook all the outstanding work, including replacing the laminate flooring, and offered her £150 compensation. Whilst the basis of the offer of £150 is not clear, in considering this particular complaint, the landlord responded to the initial leak within timescale and attempted to restore the lighting.  Taking this into account, through the offer of £150, the landlord has acknowledged its failings and has taken appropriate steps to put things right for the resident in relation to this element of the complaint.  

 

Additional repairs (toilet, patio door lock, overflow)

25. Within the complaint other repairs were raised that did not relate to the leak from above. The resident was unhappy with the length of time it had taken to get these repaired and the lengths it took to get the landlord to take action.

Toilet

26. The landlord records show that the resident reported that the toilet flush handle had broken off on 19 July 2021. The notes stated that the toilet could still be flushed but with difficulty. The repair was categorised as routine meaning that the target date for completion was 16 August 2021. However no completion date is entered and the job is marked as cancelled.

27. A second repair for the same issue was raised on 4 August 2021 stating that there was a jagged handle on the toilet and it had to be manually flushed. Again there is no completion date and the job is marked as cancelled.  The work was finally completed on 17 September 2021.

28. There is no evidence of any discussion with the resident as to why this repair was cancelled twice. It was only through her perseverance that the work was completed, one month outside of the landlord’s target timescale. This was not fair to the resident who was entitled to expect the flush to be repaired by 16 August 2021 or if not, to have been given an explanation and a timeframe for when the repair would be undertaken. Patio doors.

29. The resident informed this Service that she was unable to lock the patio door and that she felt unsafe as she lived on the ground floor. The first mention of the patio doors on the repairs log is on 6 July 2021 where ‘Stiff patio doors.  Advised they are difficult to open’ is recorded. The more detailed notes state ‘Advised that if the (sic) leave the doors open for an extended period of time they become difficult to close. Tenant believes it is an issue with the seal’.

30. The repair was listed as a routine repair and accordingly the landlord’s target was to have repaired the door within 28 days by 3 August 2021. However, the job is shown as cancelled and no work took place within the required timeframe. The repairs log shows the repair was raised again on 16 September 2021 and is marked as complete the following day. The log shows that glazing to the patio door was later adjusted and the whole door was adjusted again. The repair was marked as complete on 3 November 2021. 

31. The potential seriousness of this repair was not explored. If, as the resident stated, she was unable to lock the door, then the landlord should have considered upgrading the repair to an emergency in accordance with the example in its repairs policy. There is no evidence that this was discussed or considered. Nor was any explanation provided regarding the cancellation of the work.

Overflow

32. The resident reported that the overflow was discharging heavily onto the grass area outside the flat on 20 April 2021 and this formed part of her complaint as the problem was ongoing. This was acknowledged in the landlord’s complaint response at stage one (17 September 2021) which noted that the overflow pipe had been fixed. It confirmed that there would be an inspection on 18 October 2021 to assess any damage to the communal grassed area or the building.  

33. There is a lack of evidence in relation to this element of the complaint. The issue is not listed on the repairs log, potentially as this solely relates to the resident’s flat. It is not therefore possible to know precisely how this matter was dealt with. The landlord records and audit trail in relation to this complaint are poor and it is not possible to know how long the situation continued nor is the outcome of the later inspection known.

Carpet

34. The resident has explained that the carpets in her hallway and bedroom were poorly fitted and pulled away from the walls when vacuumed. This eventually resulted in tearing and damage to the carpet. She stated that this was reported to the landlord in 2019 at the beginning of her tenancy but no action was taken.  No evidence has been submitted in relation to this earlier complaint. The condition of the carpet was included in her complaint correspondence to the landlord dated 11 October 2021 but was not in the original complaint. The resident was unhappy that she had to take three days off work to provide access and it was only on the third day that the carpet was laid.  The carpet was replaced by early December 2021.

35. Once the resident reported the problem with the carpet in 2021 the landlord acted promptly, and the carpet was replaced within two months. This was a reasonable period of time.

36. Under the terms of the tenancy the resident is expected to provide access during working hours for inspections and works. It was not unreasonable for there to be an inspection and two follow on appointments to lay the new carpet.  The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord dealt with this element of the complaint fairly.

37. However, there were several service failures within the landlord’s handling of the other repairs as detailed above. Poor record keeping and audit trail meant that the landlord did not keep on top of the repairs, and it was left for the resident to chase. This caused detriment to the resident as she had to wait longer than expected for routine repairs to be completed. This has not been fully recognised within the landlord’s complaint handling and the redress provided was not sufficient to cover these failings. There is also little evidence that the landlord took steps to introduce better tracking or checks that may prevent such failures in the future. 

Bin Cupboard

38. In her letter of complaint dated 24 August 2021 the resident listed the overflowing bin cupboard as complaint number four. She explained that the cupboard had not been emptied for months and that there were binbags piling up outside. The smell was penetrating her home and she was worried that the overflowing cupboard was a health risk. The resident raised concerns regarding the bin cupboard again in her letter to the landlord dated 11 October 2021.  

39. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this complaint and the concerns regarding the bin cupboard. No explanation has been provided to the resident or this Service regarding this. It is noted that the complaint policy does state that the landlord will not treat a service request as a complaint. If the landlord did decide it was a service request, we would expect this to be explained to the resident and for the landlord to detail how this would be actioned. There is no evidence to show that this was the reason for the lack of response.  It appears that this complaint was simply overlooked.  The lack of response to this complaint was a significant failing. 

Complaint handling 

40. The Complaints policy sets out the timeframes within which the landlord would respond. All complaints should be acknowledged within two working days and the landlord aims to respond to stage one complaints within ten working days and stage two complaint within twenty working days.  

41. The complaint was made on 24 August 2021. The stage one letter is dated 19 September 2021 but was not sent to the resident until 29 September 2021. Both dates were outside the target timescale. The resident has also stated that she made an earlier request to escalate based upon the non-receipt of the stage one response.  There is no evidence of this within the evidence provided to this service.  Based upon the escalation request dated 29 September 2021 the stage two response was sent within the promised time scale. 

42. Neither the complaint nor the escalation request were acknowledged.  This created the impression that the landlord was not dealing with the residents concerns and increased her frustration with the landlord’s handling of the matter.   

43. The staff involved with the complaint have been apologetic and empathetic and have sought engagement from others in the organisation. However the internal systems for tracking complaints and repairs have let them down and as detailed above, this has allowed for elements of the complaint to be overlooked and works to be cancelled without explanation or updates to the resident.

44. The Ombudsman has not had sight of the landlord’s final offer of compensation but understands from the resident that this amounted to £150.  Whilst this provides suitable redress for the failures relating to the handling of the leak for above, it does not provide satisfactory redress for the number of service failures throughout the landlord’s handling of this complaint.   

Determination (decision)

45.  In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the member has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily in relation to the following complaints:

  1. The landlord’s handling of reports of a leak to the resident’s property and subsequent repairs.

46. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme:

  1. There was service failure in relation to the handling of the repair request relating to the toilet, patio door and overflow.
  2. There was maladministration in relation to the complaint concerning the maintenance of the bin cupboard.
  3. There was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

 

Reasons

47. The landlord has recognised that there were some shortcomings in its response to the repairs that took place after the leak and has taken steps to redress this by ensuring poor workmanship was rectified and flooring replaced.  It has offered suitable redress through its apology and offer of £150 compensation.

48. The landlord failed to recognise the poor handling of the other repair issues raised. This included the cancelling of repairs without explanation or updates to the resident and failure to complete works within its target timescales.

49. The landlord failed to acknowledge or respond to the complaint regarding the maintenance of the bin cupboard and no explanation or apology has been provided.

50. There was a failure to properly log and track complaints and repairs which resulted in a lack of acknowledgment for complaints and delays in providing outcomes. The offer of compensation failed to identify or redress the full extent of the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

51. The landlord pays compensation of £150 previously offered to the resident (unless already paid) as this recognised genuine elements of service failure and the sufficient redress finding is made on that basis. 

52. The landlord pays additional compensation of £600 in compensation to the resident, comprising:

  1. £300 for its handling of the other repairs,
  2. £200 for its failure to respond to the complaint regarding the bin cupboard,
  3. £100 for complaint handling failures and poor communication.

53. The landlord should confirm its compliance with the orders in this case to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

54. The landlord undertake a review of its handling of the repairs and complaint to identifies areas where improvements can be made.  The landlord should then advise the resident how it will implement the improvements identified and the relevant timescales.