The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Hyde Housing Association Limited (202216709)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216709

Hyde Housing Association Limited

25 March 2024

 

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 response to reports of a reoccurring roof leak.
    2. The associated complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy which started on 8 August 1994. The property is a 4-bedroom house.
  2. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 27 October 2022. She said that she had an ongoing problem with leaks from the roof which happen every year. She said that rainwater was leaking through the light sockets. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 1 November 2022 and asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint that she made to the Ombudsman. This Service told the landlord that the resident wanted the repairs to be completed as soon as possible.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 18 November 2022. It said it would provide a response within 9 working days, by 1 December 2022. On 19 December 2022, the landlord contacted the resident and apologised that its complaint response would be delayed as it needed to check further details. It said it would either provide its stage 1 complaint response or give a further update within 9 working days, by 4 January 2023.
  4. On 23 December 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It defined the complaint as the delay to the repair of the roof leak experienced in October 2022. It did not uphold the complaint. It said:
    1. It apologised for any distress and inconvenience caused by the roof leak and advised that works would start on 12 January 2023.
    2. The roof repair was raised by the resident on 24 October 2022, and it isolated the light in the bedroom on 2 November 2022. It said it put sealant in the holes in the roof while the roof was further assessed.
    3. It could only investigate service failures that may have occurred up to 6 months prior to the complaint being made but it acknowledged that she had contacted it about roof leaks before. Her previous reports of roof leaks in September 2020 and 2021 were responded to appropriately.
    4. The complaint was made by the resident on 14 November 2022 and it was still within its timescales for completing the repairs.
    5. It gave her a key point of contact for the staff member responsible for overseeing the roof repairs.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord 3 times between 17 January 2023 and 31 January 2023 as she was unhappy with its complaint response, and she requested compensation for the damage to her belongings. The landlord contacted the resident on 3 February 2023 about her call on 31 January 2023. It told her that it had already issued its stage 1 complaint response so it would close the new complaint logged and move the complaint to the original handler who would conduct a compensation review. The review letter was provided to the resident on 22 February 2023. It offered £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the misinformation provided about the action it would take to put things right.
  6. The resident contacted the landlord and said she was unhappy with the level of compensation offered. On 18 March 2023, she sent a letter to the landlord to put her concerns in writing. She said that the leak was a reoccurring issue that went on for 3 or more years. She said the £100 offered did not cover costs of redecorating and recarpeting the bedroom. On 5 May 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said it would not change its decision as it believed it had given a fair response and fair offer of compensation after reviewing the evidence.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint to this Service as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and its offer of compensation. It became a complaint that this Service could investigate on 5 June 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is evident that the resident is currently experiencing issues at the property which have occurred after the landlord’s final complaint response. This includes a further report of a reoccurring leak and a recent roof replacement which apparently caused a burst pipe to cause water damage in the property. The Ombudsman cannot investigate matters that did not go through the landlord’s internal complaint process. The resident may wish to log a new complaint for the landlord to investigate her current concerns and have the opportunity to put things right. She may then bring that complaint to the Ombudsman as a new case to be investigated were she to be unhappy with the landlord’s response. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.

The landlord’s response to reports of a reoccurring roof leak

  1. The landlord’s responsive repairs operational procedure outlines 3 types of repair priorities. It states:
    1. Emergency repairs include any repair required to sustain the immediate health, safety, or security of the resident, or that affects the structure of the building. It states that it will raise a repair to attend the property within 4 hours and make the property safe within 24 hours. It states that any follow-on works will be completed as an anytime repair if it cannot be completed during the make safe appointment.
    2. Anytime repairs are for any responsive repair that is not an emergency repair. It states that it will attend to complete the repair within 20 working days of the repair being reported.
    3. Major repairs are for any complex or non-emergency works that may be required. Major repairs are completed in line with another procedure.
  2. In the resident’s contact to this Service, which was considered as the resident’s stage 1 complaint to the landlord, she said that she had rainwater coming in through the bedroom light socket due to a roof leak. She said that this had been a reoccurring issue for the last few years. When a resident reports a leak in the property, the Ombudsman expects that the landlord should respond to this as an emergency repair and attend the property to check that it is safe within 4 hours of the report. This would also be in line with the landord’s repairs procedure.
  3. The landlord has provided evidence to this Service, including its repair logs. On 5 occasions, between 1 October 2019 and 29 September 2021, the resident reported a reoccurring roof leak which was causing water damage in the bedroom. The landlord’s response and handling of each report varied.
  4. Considering the separate reports of a roof leak made by the resident on 1 October 2019 and 25 August 2020, the landlord responded proactively and in line with its procedures. It attended the property on both occasions within a day of the report to disconnect the electrics in the bedroom and ensured that the property was safe. It then attended the property to complete the repair within the 20-working day timeframe outlined in its repairs procedure. The landlord’s actions and response to each report were appropriate.
  5. The resident had also made previous reports of a roof leak which the landlord did not respond proactively to. Following a report of a roof leak on 30 July 2021, the landlord attended the property on 13 August 2021, which was 10 working days after the report was made. The landlord should have attended the property sooner to ensure that the property was safe and complete any emergency works required, such as disconnecting the electrics in the affected bedroom.
  6. Similarly, following a further report on 16 August 2021, the landlord did not schedule an appointment until 25 August 2021, which was 7 working days after the repair was reported. The appointment was missed on this date, and it is unclear whether this was caused by the landlord or the resident. It is evident that a further appointment was raised and attended on 13 September 2021, which was 20 working days after the report was made. The landlord has not provided any evidence of contact attempts made during this time to complete the repair sooner. There is also no evidence to suggest that it considered whether the property was safe by considering whether an emergency appointment should be attended.
  7. The most recent roof leak report, prior to that made in the resident’s complaint, was made on 29 September 2021. The landlord attended on 1 October 2021, which was 2 working days after the report was made. Similarly, the landlord has not provided any evidence to suggest that it considered whether the property was safe as it has not provided evidence of attending an emergency appointment. The landlord therefore failed to act appropriately in response to the reports of roof leaks made on 30 July 2021, 16 August 2021, and 29 September 2021.
  8. The resident reported a further roof leak on 24 October 2022, and this was the roof leak that prompted her to contact the Ombudsman for advice and support. It is evident from both the landlord’s repair logs and its stage 1 complaint response that the landlord attended the property on 2 November 2022 and isolated the light in the bedroom to ensure that the electrics were safe. It is unclear why the landlord waited 7 working days before attending the property. It should have responded to the report of a roof leak in line with its emergency repairs timeframe of 4 hours. It was a failure by the landlord to have not acted appropriately in response to the reports of a roof leak.
  9. The landlord has not provided any evidence to suggest that it kept the resident updated between her report of the roof leak on 24 October 2022 and its appointment on 2 November 2022. During this time, the resident contacted this Service for support. It was a failure of the landlord to have not kept her updated during this time. If it had provided proactive communication with updates of the works, this may have provided some reassurance to the resident that it was taking her concerns seriously.
  10. The landlord’s repair logs state that the operative who attended the appointment on 2 November 2022 had noted that the roof was beyond repair and the property required a new roof. The landlord’s contractor updated the landlord the following day. They said that water ingress had damaged the underfelt in the loft and water had also caused damage to the roof battens. They added that it needed to replace the roof, install a new breathable membrane, add ventilation, and install a dry valley system to the roof to ensure it was fully watertight.
  11. On 11 November 2022, the resident contacted the landlord for an update on any roof works and it is unclear whether the landlord responded to her. It is unclear what information had been given to the resident at the appointment on 2 November 2022. However, it is understood that she was told by the operative that they would replace the roof because she contacted the landlord, on 17 November 2022, for an update on the new roof being installed.
  12. On 18 November 2022, the landlord contacted the resident about her complaint, and it followed this up in an email acknowledgement. It said that it understood she had been told there were holes in the roof which caused the leak and that the roof needed to be replaced. She added that she had not been updated about when the works would start and that the ongoing leak had caused damage to the bedroom. The landlord said it would investigate this and ensure that it raised the works.
  13. The resident asked the landlord for an update about the works and her complaint on 21 November 2022. The landlord provided an update on the same day. It said that it would attend the property on 25 November 2022 to assess the roof replacement in line with its repairs procedure for major works. On 29 November 2022, the landlord contacted the resident and said that it would not be replacing the roof but would repair it instead. The resident told the landlord that she was unhappy with this because the roof leaked regularly and its previous repairs had not fixed the issue.
  14. Within the landlord’s internal emails from 29 November 2022, it confirmed that the leak was caused by a faulty gutter and holes in the underfelt in the loft. It said that the property and roof was only around 20 years old and that the roof could be repaired rather than replaced. It confirmed that the works would be completed under responsive repairs, in line with its repairs procedure, rather than major works.
  15. While the resident was concerned about the roof not being replaced and instead repaired, the landlord’s decision to repair the roof was fair and reasonable. The landlord is entitled to consider the most cost-effective method of resolving a repair. It is also entitled to complete a repair in the way that it believes would resolve the issue, and it would also be fair to try other repairs if it turned out that its initial attempt was not effective.
  16. On 5 December 2022, the landlord updated the resident and said that the quote for repair works to the roof had been approved and the job would now be raised. On 8 December 2022 and 19 December 2022, she contacted the landlord again for updates about the works. It would have been good practice for the landlord to have been proactive in its communications to try and prevent the resident from spending time and trouble in chasing the works. This would have likely instilled some confidence in the landlord’s actions as the complaint response had not yet been provided, which would have understandably caused distress and inconvenience to the resident as she also had no updates on the repairs.
  17. On 12 December 2022, due to the continuing roof leak, the landlord attended the property to put sealant in the multiple holes in the roof while it arranged works for a permanent repair. The resident had been experiencing a roof leak since 24 October 2022, and the landlord took 35 working days to attend the property to temporarily resolve the leak. This was unacceptable, especially considering that the resident had told the landlord that the leak was causing damage to the bedroom.
  18. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 23 December 2022. It said it would erect scaffolding at the property on 5 January 2023 and works would start the following week, from 12 January 2023. It was appropriate for the landlord to set out what action it would take and when it would do this, to put things right for the resident. It did not acknowledge any failures in its handling of the report of the roof leak and instead said that it had responded within the timeframe of an anytime repair in line with its repairs procedure. This has been considered above and the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord should have responded sooner, in line with its emergency repairs timeframe of 4 hours to ensure that the property was safe.
  19. The landlord’s response did not acknowledge the distress and inconvenience that would have understandably been caused to the resident through its failure to provide regular and proactive communication and updates to her about the works needed. While the landlord is entitled to decide how to complete works to resolve a reported repair, its response did not consider its position about changing the works from a roof replacement to repairs, and the impact this would have caused to the resident, in relation to distress and inconvenience. It did not provide any reassurance to her about the reoccurring roof leaks. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord as it could have outlined steps it would take to learn from its mistakes, such as monitoring the works to ensure they were effective and prevented further roof leaks in the future.
  20. The repairs to the roof were completed on 12 January 2023. The resident contacted the landlord on 3 occasions between 16 February 2023 and 28 February 2023 to ask for updates of when the scaffolding would be removed. The resident told the landlord that the scaffolding had been left at the property despite the works being completed. The landlord has not provided any evidence to this Service to suggest that it responded to her requests, and it is unclear when the scaffolding was taken down. This is further evidence of a lack of proactive communication from the landlord to the resident.
  21. Overall, it took the landlord 55 working days from the date the repair was reported to resolve the roof leak. While some of this time was spent investigating the major works possibility to replace the roof, it decided on 29 November 2022 to repair the roof instead under its responsive repairs timeframe. It then took a further 29 working days to complete the repair. This was an unacceptable timeframe as it had raised the job as a responsive repair which should have been completed within 20 working days. The delay, combined with a lack of proactive communication from the landlord, would have understandably caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  22. The landlord is ordered to pay an additional £500 compensation for its failure to respond appropriately to the resident’s reports of a reoccurring leak. This includes £300 for its failure to attend the property in a reasonable timeframe as set out in its emergency repairs category within its repairs procedure. It failed to ensure that the property was safe on 4 different reports of a roof leak between 30 July 2021 and 24 October 2022. It also includes £200 for its delay in completing the works, in line with its anytime repairs timeframe. The landlord is also ordered to apologise to the resident in writing in regards to the failures identified in this report.

The associated complaint handling

  1. The resident contacted the Ombudsman to make a complaint about her landlord. On 1 November 2022, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord with details of the complaint and asked it to log and acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days, and provide its response within a further 10 working days. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). From the evidence provided by the landlord, it logged the complaint on 14 November 2022, which was 9 working days after it was notified of the complaint. The landlord then acknowledged the complaint in writing to the resident on 18 November 2022. The landlord therefore did not respond appropriately to the complaint in line with the Code. This would have understandably caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  2. The landlord advised the resident in its acknowledgement that it would provide its stage 1 complaint response within 9 working days, by 1 December 2022. The landlord did not provide its response within the timeframe that it said it would. There is no evidence to suggest that it updated the resident of the delay until she contacted the landlord about her complaint. It then provided a holding response to her on 19 December 2022, where it apologised for the delay in its response. It said it would aim to provide a response within 9 working days, by 4 January 2023. The Code states that if a landlord needs to extend its timeframe to respond to the complaint, it must do this in agreement with the resident. It was not appropriate for the landlord to delay its complaint response without good reason and for it not to update the resident to agree an extension.
  3. Within the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, provided on 23 December 2022, it said that the resident made her complaint on 14 November 2022. It said that it was still within its timeframe of completing the repair in line with its service level agreement. It is understood that this is in reference to being within its 20-working day timeframe to complete a repair in line with its anytime repairs set out in its repairs procedure.
  4. However, the landlord relied on inaccurate information as the repair was reported on 24 October 2022 and the complaint was made on 1 November 2022 through the Ombudsman. This meant that at the time of its complaint response on 23 December 2022, it had already gone over its repairs timeframe set out in its repairs procedure. It had been 44 working days since the repair was reported. It had been 38 working days since the complaint was made. It was a failing for the landlord to have relied on inaccurate information as it was aware of the correct dates in its internal records, relating to both the date of the repair being reported and the date that the complaint was made. By relying on the inaccurate information, it minimised the level of distress and inconvenience that the resident had been experiencing with the ongoing roof leak.
  5. Between 17 January 2023 and 21 February 2023, the resident contacted the landlord on 6 occasions to express that she was unhappy that the landlord’s complaint response did not include any compensation. She had also told the landlord during this time that she did not have home contents insurance and that she wanted compensation for the damage to her property. The landlord provided a compensation review letter on 22 February 2023 which reviewed its stage 1 complaint decision. It offered £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the change from a roof replacement to roof repairs. It did not address her concerns about the damage to the property.
  6. It was not appropriate or fair of the landlord to respond to the resident’s comments about her dissatisfaction with its stage 1 complaint response in this way. The landlord should have responded to her concerns by considering her multiple requests for compensation relating to the damage to her belongings as a stage 2 escalation request. It should have reviewed her comments at stage 2 of its internal complaints procedure, which would have been in line with both its complaints procedure and the Code. By not doing this, it extended the internal complaints process as the resident did not have a final complaint response to be able to escalate her complaint to the Ombudsman. This would have caused unnecessary time and trouble to the resident in resolving her complaint.
  7. The resident contacted the landlord on 6 occasions between 28 February 2023 and 2 May 2023 to express her concerns over the amount of compensation offered to her in its compensation review letter. This included a letter sent by the resident to the landlord, on 18 March 2023, to put her concerns in writing about its level of compensation and the damage to her belongings. The landlord has not provided any evidence to this Service to suggest that it responded appropriately to the resident. If it had provided communication regarding its intention to provide a stage 2 complaint response and when this would be given to her, it would have likely instilled some confidence that the landlord intended to address her concerns.
  8. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was provided on 5 May 2023. It said it would not change its decision regarding the amount of compensation it had offered previously. It said that its offer was fair and that it did not have any new information about the complaint to consider.
  9. The landlord’s responses within its stage 1, stage 2 and compensation review letters did not address the resident’s concerns about the damage caused to her belongings. The landlord was made aware that the resident did not have any home contents insurance to be able to claim for any damages to her belongings. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have provided details of how to make an insurance claim to the landlord for such damages, to allow for her claim to be independently investigated. This would also be in line with the landlord’s compensation procedure where it states that alleged damage to property should be referred to its insurance policy.
  10. Considering this, the landlord is ordered to provide details to the resident of how to make an insurance claim to it and to provide support in doing this if required. It is also ordered to pay an additional £350 compensation for its complaint handling. This includes £200 for distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to follow its complaints policies and procedures (by not providing the resident with the information of how to make an insurance claim to the landlord). It also includes £150 for the time and trouble caused to the resident by its introduction of an effective third stage in its internal complaints process.
  11. The landlord is also ordered to confirm to this Service when it plans to self-assess against the new Code. It should provide a date of when it aims to complete its self-assessment.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of a reoccurring roof leak.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the associated complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing regarding the failures identified within this report. The apology should provide specific reference to the resident’s circumstances and acknowledge both the failures and the impact this would have had on the resident. It should provide a copy of the apology to this Service.
    2. Pay £950 compensation to the resident. This should be paid directly to the resident and not the rent account. This is made up of:
      1. £100 offered by the landlord in its compensation review letter from 22 February 2023, if it has not already paid this.
      2. £500 for the landlord’s response to reports of a reoccurring roof leak.
      3. £350 for the associated complaint handling.
    3. Provide details to the resident of how to make an insurance claim to the landlord and to provide support in doing this if required.
    4. Confirm to this Service when it plans to self-assess against the new Code. It should provide a date of when it aims to complete its self-assessment.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider providing training to its complaint handling staff. This should be in regards to signposting residents to make an insurance claim to the landlord if there are disputes about damage to belongings. It should also include that reports of dissatisfaction with its stage 1 complaint response should be responded to in line with its complaints procedure. It should consider such reports at stage 2 of its internal complaints procedure and the resident should be provided with either a stage 2 complaint response or a letter detailing why the complaint cannot be escalated to stage 2 (with escalation rights to the Ombudsman).
  2. The landlord should consider providing training to its customer services team who handle reports of repairs, to ensure that they provide proactive and regular communication during ongoing reports of disrepair.