Hyde Housing Association Limited (202206639)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206639

Hyde Housing Association Limited

23 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:
   1. Response to the resident’s concerns that the property was unhabitable.
   2. Handling of repairs that the resident reported on the start date of his tenancy.
   3. Complaint handling.
   4. Record keeping.

Background

2. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat.
3. The resident viewed the property and signed the tenancy agreement to start the same day on 2 August 2021. However, he planned to physically move in on 26 August 2021, when the notice for his former property ended. He asserts that the landlord agreed to complete some repairs that he had identified during the viewing, by the 26 August 2021. He contacted the landlord when the repairs were not completed by that date and when they still had not been completed by September 2021, he informed the landlord he would not be paying rent as the delay in the repairs was preventing him from moving into the property.
4. The landlord raised the repair several times between September and November 2021, and it was not until 25 November 2021 that an inspection took place. The resident asserts that the employee completing the inspection agreed that the property was not in a “fit condition”. On the 23 December 2021, the resident raised a complaint as the repairs had still not been completed. The repairs included the front door being loose, floorboards swollen due to water damage, a missing cupboard door in the bedroom, rusty radiators, and the extractor fan not working. The resident also raised concerns about the age of the boiler.
5. On 14 January 2022 the landlord’s surveyor inspected the property and then raised repairs for the issues the resident had highlighted and also obtained approval from the renewals team for the kitchen to be replaced in the 2022/2023 financial year. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 2 February 2022 and in its stage one complaint response on 24 February 2022 it apologised for the delays, accepting this was due to its poor communication. It apologised for the cancelled appointments which it said was due to staff sickness but that it should have communicated this to the resident. It also apologised for the delay in investigating his complaint, which it said was due to “lower levels of staff during COVID 19”. It confirmed that it would complete the repairs on 25 February 2022 and awarded compensation of £150, comprised of: £50 for poor complaint handling, £50 for delay and £50 for time and trouble.
6. On 9 March 2022 the resident’s representative escalated the complaint and requested compensation to cover council tax, travel expenses and rent arrears as the resident had not been able to move into the property due to the delay in repairs. In its stage two complaint response on 24 March 2022 the landlord acknowledged that there had been additional unnecessary delays in carrying out the repairs following the surveyors visit in January 2022, and increased the compensation to £375, comprised of £125 for the delay in arranging the repairs and poor complaint handling and £250 for the inconvenience caused. It said it was unable to award compensation for rent, council tax and travel for the period of time the resident said he could not move into the property, as its surveyor had inspected the property in January 2022 and advised the repairs where not to an extent to render the property unhabitable. It advised that all repairs had now been completed except for the extractor fan, which it would book again as there had been two no access appointments.
7. The resident contacted this Service in July 2022 due to his dissatisfaction with the compensation offer. He again noted concerns about the boiler, outstanding repairs and the floorboard repair being a temporary fix. The resident as part of the resolution, requested that all repairs be completed, including the kitchen.
8. The landlord confirmed to this Service in December 2022, that it had cancelled the kitchen replacement due to lack of response from the resident, but would attempt to re-engage with the resident to arrange a date for the replacement.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that the property was unhabitable.

9. The landlord’s lettings and allocations policy states “We will let properties in accordance with Hyde’s Minimum Lettable Standard. We reserve the right to complete non-urgent repairs with the new tenant in situ and will agree a deadline for completion of these repairs with the new tenant when they take on their tenancy”. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy does not give a timescale for completing repairs. However, its website says that “all non-urgent repairs will be attended to within 20 working days.”.
10. Following our request for further information, the landlord has provided this Service with the void report for the property, which shows that it took appropriate steps to raise a number of repairs, which were completed before the resident viewed the property. The void repairs are different repairs to the ones the resident requested when viewing the property. The landlord has also provided this Service with photographs of the property before the resident moved in, and it appears to be in reasonable condition, with a basic but functional kitchen. It also provided its minimum lettable standard document. This Service has not been provided with any evidence that the property did not meet this standard when the tenancy started.
11. In line with its allocations property it was reasonable for the landlord to agree a future date (after the tenancy start date) to complete any non-urgent repairs identified at the viewing. Although in this case, it is noted that the resident was not planning to move in until three weeks after the tenancy start date, the landlord’s actions would still have been reasonable and in line with its allocations policy even if the resident had moved in on the tenancy start date. There is no evidence that any of the repairs were urgent repairs, and the agreement to carry out the repairs was not evidence that the property was unhabitable whilst awaiting those repairs. Having agreed 26 August 2021 as the date it would complete repairs by, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have done so or explained to the resident why there was a delay, but it failed to do so. This delay will be addressed in the section of this report surrounding the delay in carrying out the repairs.
12. Although the Ombudsman has not been provided with the inspection report from 25 November 2021 or 14 January 2022 (which is covered in more detail in the record keeping section of this report), following the inspection on 14 January 2022, internal communication records evidence that the surveyor confirmed the property was habitable and that the repairs identified were minor repairs. As no repairs had taken place between the date the resident viewed the property on the tenancy start date on 2 August 2021, and the date the surveyor inspected the property on 14 January 2022, this suggests that the property was habitable throughout that period, including when the inspection was made on 25 November 2021. It is also noted that during the January 2022 inspection the surveyor requested that the kitchen be considered for replacement. As a kitchen replacement is an improvement rather than a repair, the request is not evidence that the property was unhabitable whilst awaiting the kitchen replacement.
13. Although there was a delay in carrying out repairs at the property, once the resident raised the complaint on 23 December 2021, the landlord took appropriate steps to inspect the property in January 2022 and its surveyor confirmed that the property was habitable. In view of this and the lack of any other evidence to suggest otherwise, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns that the property was unhabitable. The resident was responsible for paying rent from the tenancy start date of 2 August 2021 and the landlord’s decision not to pay compensation to cover rent arrears, council tax and travel expenses for the period where he said that the repair delays prevented him moving into the property, was reasonable.

Handling of repairs that the resident reported on the start date of his tenancy.

14. When the resident reported the repairs at the viewing of the property on 2 August 2021, in line with its allocations policy the landlord should have completed the repairs by the date agreed with the resident, which was the 26 August 2021. Even without that agreement it would have been appropriate for it to have completed the repairs within 20 working days in line with the timeframe on its website. However, the landlord failed to do either. It also failed to inform the resident that there would be delays or agree a revised completion date. This resulted in the resident having to chase up the repairs. Despite this the landlord still failed to raise any repairs until 27 September 2021, which was almost two months after it had agreed to do so. This amounted to a failing by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs that the resident reported at the start date of his tenancy.
15. Despite raising repairs several times between September and November 2021, the landlord failed to attend any of the appointments at the agreed time, or to notify the resident when it had cancelled appointments. This resulted in the resident taking unnecessary time off work and having to chase the landlord repeatedly. Although the landlord took appropriate steps to inspect the property on 25 November 2021 and noted that it was awaiting a report from the inspection and would contact the resident in a couple of weeks, there is no record of it contacting the resident. As the repairs remained outstanding as of 23 December 2021, this resulted in the resident having to contact the landlord again to raise a complaint about the delays.
16. Although there was a delay in the landlord acknowledging the resident’s complaint (which is addressed in the complaint handling section of this report) the landlord did take appropriate steps to arrange for its surveyor to inspect the property on 14 January 2022. It is unclear why a further inspection was required and this would have caused inconvenience for the resident. Furthermore, once the repairs had been confirmed by the surveyor, as there had already been an unreasonable delay in actioning the repairs, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have completed the repairs promptly. However the repairs were not raised until 2 February 2022 and (with the exception of the extractor fan where access could not be gained) were completed on 25 February 2022. Whilst this was within the 20 working days stipulated, the Ombudsman must consider the overall time taken from when the repairs were initially reported. As such, it was almost seven months after the resident had originally requested the repairs and this was unreasonable and a further failing by the landlord and thus, there was maladministration by the landlord, in respect of its handling of repairs that the resident reported on the start date of his tenancy.
17. In its stage two complaint response, the landlord appropriately apologised for the delays in completing the repairs and awarded total compensation of £375 comprised of £125 for the delay in arranging the repairs and poor complaint handling and £250 for the inconvenience caused, (which replaced its previous compensation award of £150, comprised of: £50 poor compliant handling, £50 delay and £50 time and trouble). Although, in its stage two complaint response, the landlord did not specify the breakdown of the £125 awarded for the repair delays and poor complaint handling, this Service considers the figure of £50 that was mentioned for poor complaint handling in its stage one complaint response, to be a reasonable amount to award for the poor complaint handling (this is discussed further in the complaint handling section of this report).
18. When the £50 for poor complaint handling is deducted from the total £375 compensation awarded, it leaves £325 compensation for the repair delays and inconvenience caused. This Service does not consider £325 to be reasonable or proportionate. Therefore, the Ombudsman will be ordering the landlord to pay an additional £150 in respect of this aspect of the complaint. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases of maladministration where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord acknowledged the failings and made some attempt to put things right but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.
19. It is noted that the resident has advised that there are still outstanding repairs, his kitchen has not yet been replaced, the repair to the floorboard was a temporary fix and that he still has concerns about the condition of the boiler. Therefore, this Service will also be ordering the landlord to contact the resident to confirm the date that the kitchen will be replaced, and to arrange to inspect the property for any outstanding repairs and to address any that are found.

Complaint handling.

20. The landlord has a two stage complaints policy, which states that it aims to respond to Stage one  complaints “as soon as is reasonably possible and not later than twenty working days (four weeks)….if the customer is not satisfied with our response at Stage 1, a manager more senior than the person who made the response will review the case to determine if it warrants a review at stage 2 of our process…A Head of Service or a Director will review the Stage 1 response, with an aim to respond at Stage 2 as soon as possible and not later than twenty working days from the complaint escalation date from Stage 1”. It states that it reserves the right “to take a reasonable amount of additional time to investigate a complaint at each stage where the issues are complex. If it is unable to provide a full response within the target timescale it will advise the customer additional time is required and ask how frequently they would like it to provide updates.” At stage one, it says “if the target of 20 working days is reached without an update for the customer about the deadline, at this point the complaint will be escalated to Stage 2 of the procedure.”
21. When the resident raised his complaint on 23 December 2021, it would have been reasonable and in line with its complaints policy for the landlord to have responded within 20 working days, to have advised the resident of any additional time required and to have escalated the complaint to stage two if it was not able to meet its 20 working day target. However, the landlord failed to do so. The complaint was not acknowledged until 2 February 2022, which was 27 working days after the resident raised the complaint. Once the landlord had acknowledged the complaint, it took appropriate steps to keep the resident updated on when he would receive a response and provided it on 24 February 2021. However, the initial delay in acknowledging the complaint meant the response was issued 43 working days after the resident raised his complaint rather than the 20 working days stated in its complaint policy.
22. The landlord appropriately acknowledged, apologised, and compensated for the delay in its complaint responses, and the stage two complaint response was appropriately issued in line with its complaint policy timeframes. The landlord awarded £50 compensation in its stage one complaint response for its poor complaint handling. Although it increased the overall compensation amount for repair delays and poor complaint handling in its stage two complaint response, it did not specifically increase the figure for complaint handling. However, there had been no further complaint handling failings since the delay at stage one of the complaints process, which the landlord had already addressed in its stage one complaint response. In view of that, this Service considers the amount of £50 to be reasonable compensation for the poor complaint handling, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases of service failure. Therefore, of the £375 compensation awarded in its stage two complaint response this Service considers £50 of that to be in relation to the poor complaint handling and considers that to be reasonable redress for the complaint handling aspect of the complaint.

Record keeping.

23. In order to investigate this complaint, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide a copy of a report that was referred to in internal emails following an inspection it made of the property on 25 November 2021. The landlord has not provided this Service with a copy of the report. Following the stage two complaint response the resident’s representative requested a copy of the surveyor’s report from the visit on 14 January 2022. The landlord advised that it was not “not able to share the report from the inspection”. This suggested that a report existed, yet no report had been provided to the Ombudsman and none of the evidence that the landlord had provided was dated 14 January 2022. Therefore, the Ombudsman also asked the landlord to provide any report that was compiled following the surveyor’s inspection. The landlord did not respond to that request and has not provided a report for the 14 January inspection, or confirmed whether or not one exists.
24. While the landlord did not provide any reports, its records confirm that the property was inspected on 14 January 2022 and a later internal email in March 2022, confirms that the surveyor did say that the property was found to be habitable, during that inspection. However, a landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records, so that it can satisfy itself and the resident (and ultimately the Ombudsman if necessary) that it took all reasonable steps to meet its obligations. As the landlord was not able to provide this Service with the report from 25 November 2021, or able to confirm whether there was a report from January 2022, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its record keeping. Therefore, this Service will be ordering the landlord to award compensation of £100 for its poor record keeping. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases of service failure, which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns that the property was unhabitable.
26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs that the resident reported on the start date of his tenancy.
27. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in respect of its complaint handling prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves this aspect of the complaint satisfactorily.
28. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its record keeping.

Orders

29. Within four weeks of the date of this letter the landlord is ordered to contact the resident to confirm an estimated date for the kitchen replacement.
30. Within four weeks of the date of this letter the landlord is ordered to inspect the resident’s property to identify any outstanding repairs, including concerns around the boiler and outline its plans to address any issues that are found.
31. Within four weeks of the date of this letter the landlord is ordered to pay the resident:
    1. £100 for its record keeping.
    2. An additional £150 in respect of its handling of repairs that the resident reported on the start date of his tenancy.
32. Within six weeks of the date of this letter the landlord should review its record keeping to ensure that appropriate systems are in place to maintain accurate records in relation to a property and tenancy so that it can demonstrate and support the decisions it makes.