Hyde Housing Association Limited (202206474)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206474

Hyde Housing Association Limited

24 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a leak in the property.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the associated complaint and compensation offered.

Background

The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy for a one bedroom ground floor flat with the landlord, which is a housing association. At the time of the complaint the resident was undergoing treatment for cancer.
At the time of the leak, the resident was staying with a friend due to his ill health and required daily dressing changes. On 27 May 2022, a leak occurred from the property above into his flat. As the resident was not at home, the fire brigade forced entry into the property.
The resident was informed of the leak by a neighbour and on 30 May 2022, he contacted the landlord to discuss what action it would take as the leak had ruined his personal belongings including his bed. He also informed the landlord that he needed somewhere else to live as the property was unhabitable.
On 30 and 31 May 2022, the landlord raised repairs for the property, including arranging for an electrician to attend and check the electrics and for the property to be dried out.
The resident contacted the landlord on 4 and 7 June 2022 requesting an update on his property, he also requested compensation from the landlord to replace his bed, mattress, bedding and food in the fridge. On 1 June 2022 the landlord visited the property to assess the damage. In an email dated 7 June 2022 it was noted that the property smelt strongly of damp and that the damage was quite severe. Following contact with the resident, it was agreed in June 2022, that the landlord would replace the resident’s bed, mattress and bedding like for like. Furthermore, a quote was also sought by the landlord to replace the carpets within the property and an order was raised for the property to be redecorated.
On 29 June 2022 the resident contact the Ombudsman for assistance with registering a formal complaint with the landlord. This Service contacted the landlord on 3 July 2022 and confirmed that the resident wished to log a stage one complaint regarding the handling of the leak in his property.
The landlord provided a stage one response on 9 August 2022, where it said that the leak was reported on 28 May 2022 , which was fixed on the same day and raised further remedial works, which were booked for 16 August 2022. The landlord offered £50 compensation for distress and inconvenience and £50 for delay, it also said that it would dry vacuum the carpets.
The resident escalated his complaint to stage two on 24 August 2022 as he was unhappy with the response. The resident said that it took until 16 August 2022 for the water to be turned back on in his property, that no work had been completed, and as a result his property smelt strongly of damp. He said he could not live at the property.
As the resident did not receive a response to the email, he chased the landlord for an update on 29 September 2022, and said that he had been unable to live in the property since May 2022, as there was no water or electricity.
Following intervention from this Service, the landlord provided a stage two response on 8 November 2022, where it said that:
1. A slow leak from the property above had caused damage to the resident’s home, namely the walls, ceilings and the bed.
2. The resident had advised that he would stay with a friend, as he had been, due to his ill health.
3. Work had been completed to dry the property and electrics out.
4. It had contacted the resident on four separate dates in June 2022 and again in September and October 2022. It further said that the resident had opted out of calls from the landlord and to notify it if the resident wished to opt back in.
5. Following a visit from a surveyor, it was confirmed that whilst the property was affected by the leak, it did not mean that that the property was unhabitable.
6. It had laid new carpets, replaced the resident’s bed as a gesture of goodwill and completed decoration works within the property.
7. No payment was applicable to the resident, as he was not decanted.
8. It acknowledged and apologised for a delay with its complaint handling.
9. It offered an increased amount of £350 compensation, made up of:
  1. £50 for delay in responding to the complaint
  2. £50 for the lack of regular communication and time and trouble.
  3. £150 for distress and inconvenience caused by the disruption of the leak.
  4. £100 for the cost of running dehumidifiers.
10. Any other claims, reference the loss of food in the fridge freezer, should be made via his contents insurance
On 22 November 2022 the resident contacted this Service as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The resident said that he was unhappy with the level of compensation offered, his front door was still broken following the fire brigade gaining access and that he was not offered alternative accommodation. He also confirmed that on 29 October 2022, his damaged bed was removed from the property by the carpet fitters and a new bed arrived. As a resolution the resident is seeking an increased offer of compensation, compensation for loss of food, and for his rent to be covered for the period the property was unhabitable.
Following contact with this Service, the landlord has since undertaken a review of the resident’s complaint. On 26 May 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident confirming that the leak occurred on 26 May 2022 and that on 9 June 2022 he was informed that he could move back to his property. The landlord acknowledged that it failed to consider a disturbance payment for this period and offered the resident £560.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role is to determine complaints by reference to what is fair in all the circumstances and decide if the landlord is responsible for maladministration or service failure.
When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its dispute resolution principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
1. put things right, and.
2. learn from outcomes.

The landlord’s handling of a leak in the property.

The resident’s tenancy confirms that it is the landlord’s responsibility to:
1. Ensure the structure and exterior of the home is kept repaired.
1. Make sure fixtures and fittings for water, gas, electricity, space and water heating are kept repaired and in working order.
2. Carry out repairs that it is responsible for, such as repairing or replacing fixtures and fittings which it owns.
The tenancy further states that in an emergency where the landlord cannot gain access it may have to force an entry. This might be, for example, where water is overflowing or somebody’s life or physical safety is at risk. In this case it would secure the property and repair any damage as a result of the forced entry.
The landlord’s decant and home loss payment procedure states that it will decant residents from properties if necessary in situations, which include:
1. A building is unsafe or hazardous.
1. Gas, electricity or water will not be available for a prolonged period of time.
2. Loss of a significant proportion of the property for more than one week and works cannot be sequenced to prevent this.
The procedure also states that if residents are staying with friends or family, a daily allowance of £40 is available and payments are made in arrears once a week.
Furthermore, the landlord’s decant and home loss and disturbance payments policy guidance defines the type of decant as:
1. Emergency decant: Where an unexpected event has cause the property to become unhabitable and the landlord will request the tenant contact the local authority. Or options for emergency decants include:
  1. Staying with friends or relatives.
  2. Staying in a budget priced hotel at the landlord’s expense for a maximum of 14 days.
1. Temporary decant: Options include
  1. Staying with friends or relatives.
  2. Temporary decant to another property managed by the landlord.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight on record keeping says that keeping an accurate audit trail is an important part of a landlord’s service delivery. The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate and detailed records of any conversations relating to repairs so that it can satisfy itself and the resident (and ultimately the Ombudsman if necessary) that it acted in accordance with what was discussed and with its policies.
Records show that following the resident’s initial contact on 30 May 2022 where he requested alternative accommodation, the landlord initially considered a decant. The landlord also noted that the resident had recently undergone cancer treatment and was undergoing treatment at home.
Internal emails indicate that the landlord made contact with the resident on the same day to discuss the decant, but the resident informed the landlord that he would stay with his partner that evening. There is also an email dated 31 May 2022, that indicated that no alternative accommodation was required as the resident would stay with his partner. The resident has made it clear to this Service that his landlord did not offer him alternative accommodation, and whilst the landlord has provided information confirming that a decant was initially considered, it is not clear whether the landlord did have a conversation with the resident or whether it was assumed that alternative accommodation was not required as he had said he would stay with his partner on the 30 May 2022.
The landlord visited the property on 1 June 2022 and reported the condition of the property. It was also reported that there was still a leak coming from the stack pipe. It is not clear whether the 7 June 2022 internal email is in relation to the visit on 1 June 2022 or whether a second visit had happened, but this shows that the landlord was taking appropriate steps to assess the resident’s home, and that it had found ‘severe damage’.
Furthermore, in June 2022 the resident contacted the landlord regarding the damage to his bed and carpets. Information shows that the landlord again took the appropriate steps to try and put things right for the resident by actively seeking quotes to replace the resident’s bed, bedding and carpets. The landlord’s actions were reasonable and fair in the circumstances.
However, it is clear that the resident was frustrated with the landlord’s actions and actively chased it for updates regarding his home and when repairs were going to be completed. The resident sought assistance from his MP and this Service as he had not been receiving any updates from the landlord. The landlord has been unable to provide any information which shows that it contacted the resident to provide him with updates or confirm when he was able to move back into the property. There is no evidence that supports its position that it informed the resident on 9 June 202 that he could return. Furthermore, no information has been provided to show what repairs were raised, or when they were completed.
Given that the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerable situation, namely that he had just undergone cancer treatment, it should have been taking proactive steps to ensure that the resident was able to return home as soon as possible, or seek to confirm if his current living arrangements were suitable for him. The landlord had a duty to provide the resident with alternative accommodation under its decant policy or provide him with a home loss payment. The landlord failed to follow it’s own policies and procedure. As the landlord is unable to demonstrate that it contacted the resident to confirm whether his living arrangements were suitable, this indicates that the landlord assumed that the resident did not require alternative accommodation as he had been living with his partner.
There is a discrepancy between the landlord and the resident regarding how long the property was unhabitable for. The landlord says that the property was unhabitable for two weeks, but the resident states that the property was unhabitable for a number of months. This Service requested information from the landlord to evidence the way in which it handled the resident’s repairs, updates and request for alternative accommodation, including:
1. Records which show the repairs that were raised, on what date, what works were originally being carried out and any communications which document.
2. Any letters, copies of emails or telephone calls which show what information the resident was given regarding the repairs in his home and when he could return back to the property, including any contact regarding any delay and any explanations given to the resident for this.
3. Any information relating to the resident’s reports that he was unable to move back to the property for a number of months and the response it gave.
The Ombudsman has received very little information from the landlord, which indicates the landlord either does not hold these records or is unable to retrieve them. This Service would expect all contact to be recorded on the landlord’s system, to ensure there is an audit trail for any future issues that are raised. The landlord provided the resident with a brief response in its complaint responses, but the landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with little evidence to support its position.
It is for the Ombudsman to decide whether the landlord acted reasonably and fairly given the circumstances at the time. The resident says that he informed the landlord on multiple occasions of his disabilities and chased a response regarding being able to move back to the property. The landlord’s final response states that the property was habitable, however no further details relating to how it responded to the resident’s reports and the actions it took were provided.
In circumstances such as these, this Service would expect to see clear communication between the landlord and the resident confirming a schedule of works which would be carried out within the property and for it to provide the resident with regular updates, especially given the resident’s vulnerabilities. Despite the resident informing the landlord multiple times between June and October 2022 that the property was still unhabitable and he was without a bed, the landlord has been unable to provide this Service with evidence that it appropriately responded to the resident’s concerns.
The landlord also failed to acknowledge the impact that the leak had on the resident, namely that he was unable to live in his home whilst the property was damp and failed to communicate with the resident effectively. As such, it has not taken sufficient action to ‘put things right’ for the resident. Neither had it detailed how it has ‘learned from outcomes’ and what steps it has taken to prevent a recurrence of the failings.
The Ombudsman draws the landlord’s attention to section six of the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code, which sets out what the Ombudsman considers are the best practice principles of “putting things right” where there have been failings. This includes the principle that any remedy offered by a landlord “must reflect the extent of any service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident”. Therefore, the decision to not take into consideration those factors was not reasonable.
In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, the Ombudsman takes into account a range of factors including any distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord, and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s acts and/or omissions. It considers whether any redress is proportionate to the severity of the failing by the landlord and the impact on the resident. The Ombudsman also takes into account the evidence that has been provided.
Ultimately the Ombudsman considers what would be fair and proportionate. The aim of compensation is not to be punitive, but to provide redress for the impact of any failings by the landlord on the resident. In order to resolve this aspect of the complaint, the resident is seeking compensation for the ruined food in his fridge freezer, a refund on his rent and for compensation for the distress caused.
The Ombudsman has first considered the distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident as a result of the delay in ensuring the resident’s home was habitable within a reasonable timeframe. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance where there has been a failure which accumulated over a significant period of time a payment of over £1000 is recommended. Overall, based on the information provided the resident was unable to live in his property for approximately five months, and whilst the landlord took steps to try to mitigate the damage, it was aware of the impact the leak had on the resident, and that ultimately he was unable to live in his home. The prolonged amount of time the resident was left without a clear indication of when he could move back within his property, or an offer to move to an alternative property was unacceptable and the landlord should have taken steps to ensure the resident could return within a reasonable timeframe, especially given the resident’s medical condition. In recognition of this, the Ombudsman has made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £1200 compensation.
Compensation relating to the resident’s home being unhabitable for a number of months and subsequently living with his partner, the landlord’s decant and home loss and disturbance payments policy guidance states that resident’s should be awarded an amount of £40 per day. However, the Ombudsman deems it more appropriate to consider compensation based on rent.
The leak occurred on 27 May 2022 and the resident confirmed to this Service that his carpets and bed were replaced on 29 October 2022. Whilst it is not clear from the information provided whether other repairs were outstanding, this Service has determined that the property was unhabitable for this time period, which was 22 weeks. The resident’s weekly rent in 2019 was £173.24 and this Service will use this figure in order to calculate the amount due to the resident. Therefore, the landlord is ordered to make a payment of £3811.28 to the resident.
Whilst considering whether the landlord should reimburse the resident for the contents in his fridge, this Service must determine whether this falls under the landlord’s responsibility. The contents of the resident’s home do not usually fall under the responsibility of the landlord, and therefore contents insurance is recommended. This Service acknowledges that the landlord replaced the resident’s bed, bedding and carpet as a gesture of goodwill. The resident has noted that it was the Fire Brigade that left open his fridge and freezer. This Service determines that the landlord was not responsible for contents of the fridge freezer.
In summary, there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the leak in the property due to the length of time that the property was unhabitable, the lack of communication with the resident and failing to take into consideration the residents medical condition and vulnerabilities.

The associated complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaint policy shows that it operates a two-stage formal complaint procedure. It states that it aimed to acknowledge complaints within five working days, provide a stage one response within 10 working days and a stage two response within 20 working days.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code April 2020, (the Code), paragraph 3.14 specifies that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate.
A formal stage one complaint was made to the landlord, via this Service, on 3 July 2022. The landlord was asked to provide the resident with a response by 18 July 2022. The resident contacted this Service again on 18 July 2022, as he did not receive a response. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 20 July 2022, which was considerably outside of the published timescale of five working days, and said it would provide a response by 3 August 2022, which was 10 working days from the date of acknowledgement.
This Service recognises that delays do occur, however the time it took for the landlord to acknowledge the resident’s complaint was not reasonable and would have added to the frustration he was experiencing.
Furthermore. the landlord failed to provide a response by the deadline it had set, which prompted the resident to contact this Service for further assistance. Following this Service’s intervention, the landlord provided its stage one response on 9 August 2022. On review of the response, it is clear that the landlord did not fully address the resident’s complaint. Although the response did acknowledge that a leak had been identified and that remedial works to the communal block had been booked, it failed to provide the resident with any assurances regarding the ongoing work at his property or details of when he could move back into the property, nor did it respond to the resident’s request for the property to be redecorated.
This Service has seen evidence that the resident escalated his complaint on 24 August 2022 directly with the landlord and further explained that no works had been completed within his property, that there was a strong smell of damp and the wet carpets and bed were still present in the flat. The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s request to escalate his complaint to stage two and on 29 September 2022 the resident contacted the Ombudsman. The landlord was asked by this Service to provide a response by 13 October 2022.
The information available to this Service shows that the landlord again failed to respond to the resident by the deadline and it was given an extension until 7 November 2022. The landlord provided its stage two response on 8 November 2022, which was 53 working days after the resident’s request and considerably outside of its published timescales.
The landlord’s response failed to provide the resident with any clear assurance about his property or provide a comprehensive response regarding the complaint background and what steps it had taken to put things right.
Furthermore, this Service considers that the stage two response was not in line with the dispute resolution principles and failed to treat the resident with respect. Within the stage two response the landlord says ‘’You were not in your home when the leak was alerted to the Fire Brigade and did not call until 5 days after the event. The absence of anyone living in your flat has allowed the leak to cause more damage’’. Whilst it may be true that the level of damage was more severe as no one had been staying at the property at the time, the landlord should not have apportioned blame on the resident and should have acknowledged the resident’s circumstances, namely that due to his personal circumstances and medical conditions he was not staying in his home.
In line with point 3.14 of the Code, the landlord should have addressed the resident’s complaint points fully. This did not happen and there was service failure by the landlord. An order for compensation has been ordered to resolve this aspect of the complaint.
It is not clear how the landlord calculated £50 compensation for the delay in providing the resident with a response as the landlord’s compensation policy does not give any recommended amounts. When deciding whether the amount is fair, it is reasonable to use this Service’s guidance on remedies. Where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident, and the landlord has failed to address the detriment to the resident, payments of between £100 and £600 are recommended. Therefore, the offer of £50 by the landlord was not reasonable due to the extensive delays the resident experienced and the lack of clarity in its complaint response at both stage one and two.
In summary, it is clear that the landlord did not handle the resident’s stage one and stage two response in line with its own complaint policy. Due to the seriousness of the resident’s complaint, there was maladministration in the circumstances and in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, the landlord is ordered to make a payment of £500.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leak in the property
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £5511.28 within four weeks of the date of this report for the reasons identified above.
The landlord is ordered to carry out a case review to identify any lessons that can be learnt from this complaint and any changes which may be needed to the landlord’s processes and policies in view of this. The landlord should write to the resident and this Service to confirm the findings of this case review within eight weeks of the date of this report.
The landlord should also provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report within four weeks of the date of this report.
The landlord is ordered to review its record keeping practices, to ensure that accurate and accessible records are kept and maintained. As part of its review, the landlord should consider whether a record management policy and staff training are required. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman confirming this has been completed and detailing the outcome.
The landlord should carry out a post inspection of the resident’s home within four weeks of the date of this report and complete any works identified within eight weeks of the report.

Recommendations

The landlord should review it’s processes relating to how it handles repairs, within the homes of residents who have medical conditions and vulnerabilities.
The landlord should carry out training with its repairs contractors to ensure all relevant information is recorded accurately to reflect the work that has been completed following a repairs visit.
The landlord should review the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on record keeping and the importance of keeping up to date and accurate data.