Hyde Housing Association Limited (202128326)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202128326

Hyde Housing Association Limited

13 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 complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of leaks to the roof of the property and consequent repairs to make good the kitchen.
    2. The landlord’s record keeping on the issue.
    3. Its handling of the associated formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured shorthold tenancy of the property, a new build owned by the landlord. Her tenancy commenced in October 2015.
  2. The resident reported leaks to the roof of the property at various times in the years prior to her formal complaint. The most recent report was in December 2019. A fix of the roof was attempted on 6 February 2020 and in August 2020, subcontractors determined that a new roof was required and that the current one was beyond repair. However, this was not actioned, and the consequent remedial work was closed.
  3. The resident made a complaint to the landlord about the issue on 16 November 2020, in which she stated that the leaks from the roof was causing damp in her kitchen. In its decision, of 1 February 2021, the landlord acknowledged a failure in its service and poor communication on its part. It offered compensation of £350 to the resident, to be paid within 28 days. The resident chased the landlord for payment of the agreed compensation in March and April 2021. She also continued to request updates for the repairs to the roof and raised concerns over its record keeping on the issue.
  4. In its stage 2 response of 7 February 2022, the landlord offered the resident a further £200 in compensation, a total of £550.
  5. In referring the matter to this Service, the resident stated that she was still awaiting repairs to the kitchen.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident, in her later correspondence with this Service, expressed her dissatisfaction with the standard of the works to the kitchen which had eventually been undertaken by the landlord. This issue was raised on 31 October 2022, several months after the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.
  2. Paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman scheme provides that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which “are made prior to having exhausted a [landlord]’s complaint’s procedure”. This means that this report would not consider this aspect of the matter which occurred after the formal complaint being considered in this case. The resident, may wish to consider raising a new formal complaint with the landlord on the issue, stating her specific concerns with the kitchen repairs.

Leak to the roof and consequent repairs to the kitchen

  1. According to Clause 1.2 of the landlord’s Responsive Repairs Procedure, the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the structure of buildings, including the roof. Clause 5.4 of the landlord’s Pre Inspection Procedure sets out target dates of 10 working days after the inspection order date for the surveyor to complete action. In addition, clause 5.12 provides that, having carried out the inspection, the surveyor should advise the resident of their findings and explain in a follow up letter how they will proceed and what works will be carried out.
  2. There is also an obligation under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for the landlord to keep in repair, the structure of a dwelling, and to carry out any repairs within a ‘reasonable time’.
  3. The landlord in its dealings with the resident always conceded it was responsible for the repair. Instructively, its repairs log identified December 2019 as the period in which it became aware of the need for further repairs to the resident’s roof. However, it failed to meet its obligation to advise the resident about its findings and how it intended to deal with the issue. Instead, the resident complained about her difficulties in reaching the surveyor and in achieving a resolution to the leaking roof.
  4. Significantly, communications from the contractor to the landlord show that it had undertaken a visit in January 2020 and its ‘in house roofers,’ attending in August 2020, had indicated that a new felt system was required as the roof as beyond repair. The evidence indicates that a temporary repair was completed to the roof in February 2020 but the continued delays to completing the works, thereafter, are unwarranted. There is no evidence that the resident received adequate communications on the situation at this time or explanations about the delays. It must be noted that the resident had mentioned, in the earlier months, that a piece of the ceiling had fallen on her child. Thus, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to be proactive about ensuing the timely completion of the works.
  5. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the repair to the roof would have been deemed a major repair in accordance with the landlord’s Responsive Repairs Procedure. This Service also acknowledges that the landlord was reliant on the original roofers to eventually fix the roof because it was on warranty. The resident did state in her complaint that in the initial months, ‘numerous people’ attended the premises to attempt a fix the roof but were unsuccessful. She also complained of being tired of calling the landlord as there had been no progress to the repair.
  6. The lack of progress is explained many months later, in 2021 when internal correspondence indicated that the job was accidentally closed after a contractor had identified the current roof as beyond repair and requiring a replacement felt roof. This accidental closure must have led to a failure to adhere to its own Responsive Repairs policy because the resident was left for many months without answers or a response. It also meant the landlord did not adhere to its post-inspection policy because a post-inspection would have highlighted the outstanding fault and would have helped reopen the job that was accidentally closed.
  7. Ultimately, over 11 months following its knowledge of the continuing leaky roof, little progress was made. A roofer was only tasked, on 3 February 2021, to inspect the premises; a surveyor was also tasked on the same day to consider whether the roof was still within warranty..
  8. Nothing but a flurry of internal messages occurred thereafter and in May 2021, the resident continued to chase updates to the roof repairs. Eventually, it was confirmed in June 2021 that roofers will be attending the resident’s premises. However, the kitchen was not made good until several month later.
  9. In its correspondence to the resident on 7 February 2022 the landlord apologetically explained that in the aftermath of the final repairs to the resident’s roof in June 2021, her case was yet again, accidentally closed. This meant that there was a failure to follow up with arranging internal remedial works to her kitchen. It is unclear how the issue was raised again, but the resident in her complaint described contacting the landlord on numerous occasions without successfully progressing the matter.
  10. Internal emails show that a job booked on 10 September 2021 for replastering the resident’s kitchen was cancelled because the operative had issues with his van and this appointment was not rebooked. In the resident’s email on 26 May 2022 she also referred to cancellations and plasterers who never showed up and described the inconvenience she had experienced with recurrent rescheduling of appointments. She narrated an occasion when her mother waited all day in the property for a contractor who never showed up. It is unclear from the repairs log how many times the events of cancellations and rescheduling occurred. However, the evidence indicates that there were numerous disruptions and cancellations, given that 11 months after the eventual repairs to the roof, the resident was still chasing the making good of her kitchen.
  11. Thus, by May 2022 the resident had spent no less than 29 months awaiting complete resolution of her kitchen repairs. This inordinate delay meant that the landlord was in breach of its own Responsive Repairs Policy. Its actions and inactions revealed failures in properly communicating with the resident and failures in adhering to its pre and post-inspection obligations. The evidence further indicates the contractors closing down repair jobs on more than one occasion, leading to further delays.
  12. The resident consistently contacted the landlord to report that the works remained uncompleted and it is expected that the landlord would have been more proactive in chasing its contractors. Ultimately the landlord failed in ensuring that the external and internal repairs were completed within a ‘reasonable time’ as required by s11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and its own policy.
  13. The Ombudsman finds that there were significant shortcomings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of leaks to the roof of the property and consequent repairs to make good the kitchen. This report concludes that the compensation sums awarded by the landlord do not sufficientlyredress the level of delay and consequent anxiety caused to the resident.
  14. Consideration is given to the time and trouble the resident incurred in seeking to resolve this complaint, the number of times she would have rescheduled her priorities and her day to accommodate contractors who failed to turn up. Pivotal to the compensation level is the period taken to fix this repair. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to pay £300 in compensation to the resident to reflect the impact of the issues on her.

Record keeping

  1. The data retention schedule under General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) requires storage of up to six years for property maintenance records; this suggests that repairs and other maintenance logs should be as accurate as possible to meet this legal obligation. The Housing Ombudsman Service also recognises that good record keeping is integral to the service provided by a landlord.
  2. Despite these legal and industry expectations, there are significant gaps in the evidence, indicative of poor record keeping. For example, the resident complained that each time she contacted the landlord she felt that records were not being kept of her concerns. This Service finds that, it is only on closer scrutiny, comparing email correspondence to repair logs that certain timelines become clear – for example, ascertaining the date on which the landlord became aware of the leaky roof.
  3. Additionally, there are conflicting evidence which refer to the roof being fixed on 6 February 2021; however, the background information reveals that in February 2021, a decision was only being made on the resident’s stage 1 complaint.
  4. There is also an unequivocal email with a date stamp of 4 May 2021 in which the resident was still chasing the roof repairs, and this was followed by the resident being informed on an email date stamped June 2021 that a roofer will be attending on 2 June 2021. It therefore appears that in subsequent correspondence, ‘2/6/21’ was swapped to ‘6/2/21’.
  5. Furthermore, the landlord’s log of repairs does not match some of the resident’s concerns; they do not record all the occasions on which she stated a surveyor or plasterer unsuccessfully attended her home. In her formal complaint in November 2020, she referred to numerous people coming to the premises but this is not reflected on the record and in any event, poor recording practice led to the job pertaining to her roof being closed until she inadvertently resurrected it by escalating her complaint.
  6. In relation to the accidental closure of her repairs, there are at least two occasions when this occurred. The first was in 2020 after a contractor declared the roof beyond repair and the second was after the roof was repaired in June 2021. Closing the job after each of these occurrences delayed completion of the repairs so that the resident had to continue to chase for updates.
  7. There is no record of any direct correspondence from or to the resident at all between 2 June 2021 and 3 January 2022, yet we know from subsequent complaints from the resident that she continued to chase for updates. We also know that this is the intervening period during which there was an accidental closure of the remedial works for her kitchen. Besides, in relation to the stage 2 complaint, it is unclear on the records provided when the resident escalated her complaint, but it must have been sometime between the above two dates.
  8. It is therefore unsurprising that in its stage 2 report, the resident was invited by the landlord to set out her issues almost as if the landlord was unaware of them. This further echoes her complaint that she often repeated her complaint whenever she contacted the landlord.
  9. The above instances of poor record keeping are representative of the delay suffered by the resident and could be considered a major cause of the delays to the works in general. It is these failings which led the resident to wait over 29 months for her repairs and which amount to maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.  Although the landlord, in its stage 1 response, conceded that it had offered a poor service and was putting right its training on communication and on recording information accurately, it did not compensate the resident for this failing. Also, the reference to record keeping was incidental and no redress was offered. Moreover, events reveal that the same problem repeated itself shortly after stage 1 and the resident was left chasing again a resolution. The landlord has therefore been ordered to pay £200 for its poor record keeping on the issue.

Complaint handling

  1. Paragraph 9.6 of the landlord’s Complaints Policy states that formal acknowledgment of a complaint will follow within two working days. The same policy also states that a full response will be provided within ten working days.
  2. The resident made her complaint on 16 November 2020 and an acknowledgement came, not two – but 16 working days later on 2 December 2020. In its acknowledgement, a full response was promised by 20 December 2020. The landlord did not, however, meet the deadline of. The full response was late, arriving as it did on 1 February 2021.
  3. A response on 1 February 2021 meant that the landlord responded an entire 55 working days after her complaint and in breach of its own policy. Importantly, there is no correspondence in the intervening period explaining why additional time was required. Thus, there were delays in both the acknowledgment and full response stages of the process with no explanatory correspondence for the delay.
  4. The resident was offered compensation with an expectation that it will be paid within 28 calendar days. She indicated that she signed the compensation form on 9 February 2021 with an expectation that payment will be made within 28 days – that is, by 7 March 2021. She chased twice for that payment, the last time being on 6 April 2021. This means the resident waited, at least, a total of 58 calendar days for the compensation to be paid.
  5. In its email of 4 February 2021, attaching its stage 1 response to the resident, the landlord stated that the complaint will remain open until her roof was repaired. This is contrary to the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code, especially at clause 6.5 which requires the landlord to clearly set out what will happen and by when. Instead, the resident received compensation for £350, an explanation for the delay in fixing her roof, which was that the roof was on warranty and contacting the original roofer may take some time. The resident was also provided the name of a lead surveyor but no estimates of completion dates or indication of any real next steps. This was met with subsequent update requests from the resident. Whilst the need for an original roofer is understandable, a period of 16 months to contact a roofer (from December 2019)  is far from reasonable.
  6. On the paperwork supplied it is impossible to accurately gauge the rate of the landlord’s response to stage 2. This is because there is no record of the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to a stage 2. Nevertheless, there is a delay in completion of stage 2 from the date of the landlord’s commencement of that process, especially if it is assumed the complaint was received on 4 January 2022 when the landlord directed escalation to stage 2. The delay is made worse if the date is taken from 22 December 2021 when there is an email from the landlord asking that the case be reviewed for a stage 2 escalation. The stage 2 is eventually completed on 7 February 2022, which is more than the 4 weeks promised on its Complaints Policy at paragraph 9.10 and this is the case whether the process start date is taken from 4 January 2022 or 22 December 2021.
  7. Considering the above incidents, which fall short of the landlord’s complaints policy and the Complaint Handling Code, this Service concludes that there were significant failings in the landlord’s handling of the formal complaint. Although the compensation already awarded by the landlord recognises its general failing in resolving the resident’s complaints, its offer is not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation. The landlord is therefore ordered to pay an additional £200 for its handling of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of leaks to the roof of the property and consequent repairs to make good the kitchen.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this determination the landlord should:
    1. Provide the resident with an apology in writing for the failings identified by this investigation.
    2. In addition to the compensation £550 already paid to the resident, pay the resident an additional sum of £700 ( the total sum of £1250):
      1. £300 for the delay in fixing the roof and kitchen.
      2. £200 for poor record keeping.
      3. £200 for complaints handling.
    3. The landlord should share the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code with its staff members who deal with complaints in order to ensure that complaints are responded to in line with best practice.
    4. Provide evidence to this Service of compliance with these orders.

Recommendations

  1. The Landlord should in compliance with its post-inspection policy, undertake post-inspection of the completed works in the kitchen if not done already.
  2. Consider reviewing any staff guidance on its complaint policy to mitigate the risk of failings identified in this case.
  3. Consider reviewing its record keeping practices in relation to repairs and contact with tenants