Hyde Housing Association Limited (202329273)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329273

Hyde Housing Association Limited

21 August 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.
2. Repairs to a garage door.
3. The resident’s reports about outstanding repairs to windows and doors.
4. The resident’s reports about outstanding repairs to the hallway.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made before having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale. There was no evidence of the resident raising concerns about damp and mould throughout her property in her complaint to the landlord in September 2023.
The landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy started on 18 May 1998. The property is a 3-bedroom mid-terrace house with a garage. The landlord has disabilities recorded for the resident.
An expert witness report completed on behalf of the resident in December 2021 referred to a letter of claim issued to the landlord by the resident on 30 September 2021. The points raised in the claim included damage to windows at the property, and a leak and damaged plaster in the hallway.
The report stated remedial works were required to the windows in the living room, to install trickle vents where missing, ease and adjust the windows to prevent draughts, and ease and adjust the patio door. It said the remedial works required for the issues in the hallway were the insulation of the utility cupboard and hallway partition wall, the enlargement of the porch roof outlet and installation of a guard, water testing the roof, to dehumidify the hallway walls and ceiling and make good the plaster, and to inspect the front entrance door frame and reinsulate to prevent draughts at a low level.
A schedule of works completed by the landlord on 20 January 2022 noted works to be investigated by a contractor to the sitting room windows and the porch as identified in the report from December 2021.
A schedule of works completed by the landlord on 11 April 2023, noted works to be investigated by a contractor to the front porch. This was noted as to remove loose paint and redecorate the front porch ceiling and walls.
The landlord’s repair records noted the landlord raised a repair to the garage on 8 August 2023, following a report from the resident that the garage door was not staying open.
The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 22 September 2023. The complaint was about outstanding repairs. The resident said the landlord’s housing disrepair team were involved, work had now stopped and was not finished. The resident said she reported repairs but the landlord had not responded.
The landlord’s records noted a call with the resident on 25 September 2023. The resident said the living room windows were still outstanding, and a leak in the hallway had caused paint to flake off and that water was continuing to come in.
The landlord emailed the resident on 25 September 2023. The email summarised a telephone conversation with the resident and acknowledged her complaint. The email said the following:
1. The resident had complained about the outstanding repair to her garage and outstanding repairs in a disrepair claim.
2. The landlord attended her property around 4 months prior and advised it was unable to fix her garage door and it required replacement.
3. The resident chased the repair with the landlord but no further actions had taken place.
4. The resident contacted the landlord’s contractor on 22 September 2023 but did not receive a call back.
5. The resident was trying to communicate with the landlord’s disrepair surveyor about an active disrepair case but had not received further communication on emails about the renewal of the living room windows and leaks in the hallway.
The landlord issued a works order to its contractor for the repair to the garage door on 27 September 2023. The contractor confirmed the appointment was booked with the resident.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 27 September 2023. It said the following:
1. It should have completed the repairs much sooner.
2. The resident’s complaint was upheld and it was sorry.
3. An appointment was made regarding the garage door for 29 September 2023.
4. There was a point of contact overseeing the repair to the garage through to completion. It provided the contact details.
5. The resident contacted the landlord’s contractor in June 2023 and reported the garage door did not stay open. The landlord had responded promptly to the initial problem but failed to follow up by fixing the repair to the garage door. This had still not been repaired and the resident had chased for an update.
6. The disrepair team confirmed it was only agreed to replace two windows to the sitting room and the rear patio doors. It did not agree to replace the living room windows.
7. Regarding the hallway, it was trying to contact the adjoined resident as it did not own the property. It need to obtain permission to remove soil from their front garden as it believed that high bed levels were the issue.
8. It offered the resident £300 of compensation broken down as follows:
  1. £100 for customer effort.
  2. £100 for the delays in service.
  3. £100 for distress and inconvenience.
On 2 October 2023, the landlord’s contractor told the landlord it attended the wrong garage for the repair appointment on 29 September 2023. It confirmed it notified the resident of a new appointment for 6 October 2023.
On 6 October 2023, the landlord’s contractor provided the landlord with a quote. The quote stated it was to supply and replace the garage door.
The resident emailed the landlord on 13 October 2023 to advise she did not receive a call that day as planned. The landlord responded on 17 October 2023. It apologised for missing the call and rearranged this for 19 October 2023. The resident emailed the landlord on 19 October 2023 to advise the landlord had not called her as planned.
The landlord responded to the resident via email on 19 October 2023. It said it chased the surveyor and contractor about the works but had not received a response. The landlord said it was going to request the complaint was escalated to stage 2 because it failed to commit to what it had advised at stage 1.
The landlord’s records showed a contractor order for the garage repair was raised on 20 October 2023. On 24 October 2023, the landlord issued a purchase order to the contractor repairing the garage.
On 30 October 2023, the landlord emailed the resident. It said it tried to call the resident about her complaint. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation. It said the resident remained dissatisfied because the appointment did not take place as agreed and the garage door remained broken. It said it would provide a response by 24 November 2023.
The resident emailed the landlord on 31 October 2023. She said the landlord confirmed the complaint about the garage was escalated to stage 2 but this was not her only complaint. The landlord responded on 1 November 2023, and said the remaining repairs were with its disrepair team and reconfirmed the information in the stage 1 letter about the replacement of windows and the repair to the hallway.
On 2 November 2023, the landlord raised an emergency repair following a report from the resident of a leak from upstairs. It noted the resident received an electric shock when turning on the lounge light.
On 7 November 2023, the landlord’s contractor confirmed to the landlord it was returning to the resident’s property on 13 November 2023 to complete the repair to the garage and the resident was aware.
The landlord provided its final response in an email to the resident on 10 November 2023. In the email the landlord confirmed it had requested attendance for the resident’s roof repair (from the leak reported in November) and this did not form part of her complaint. The landlord said the following in its response:
1. It agreed that it had not repaired the resident’s garage when it should have and did not communicate with any reassurance on how it would rectify the issues with the garage.
2. In its stage 1 response, it had confirmed the following:
  1. In regard to the hallway, it was trying to contact the adjoining resident. It did not own the property and needed permission to remove soil from their front garden, as it believed the high bed levels were the issue.
  2. After liaising with its disrepair team about the resident’s claim, it was only agreed to replace 2 windows in the sitting room and repair the rear patio doors. The living room windows were not part of the claim.
  3. An appointment was booked for 29 September 2023 for the garage door. It had awarded the resident £300 of compensation in relation to this.
3. The resident confirmed the appointment did not happen.
4. Its contractor attended the wrong garage. It was sorry for the error.
5. It had rebooked a new appointment and the garage door would be completed by 1 December 2023.
6. The stage 1 response was appropriate. It recognised it then failed the resident further regarding the repair of the garage. It should have moved forward with this quicker, and it was sorry for the added delays and inconvenience.
7. It increased its offer of compensation to £400, in relation to the garage door. This was broken down as follows:
8. £150 for the delays in service delivery.
9. £150 for customer effort.
10. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
The landlord’s contractor confirmed on 15 November 2023 that the repair to the garage door was completed.
On 21 November 2023, the resident contacted this Service. She said there were issues in her hallway, water was coming in through windows, and through the ceiling. The resident said she was not a well person and had experienced a cardiac arrest. The resident said on 2nd November 2023 she received an electric shock from a light switch which had water leaking through it. She said the landlord had sent a roofer out. The resident provided photos of mould to windows, mould to a wall, and water marks to the walls and a ceiling.
On 21 February 2024, the resident discussed her complaint with this Service. She said damp and mould was present in her property and that in one room she could see the brick wall showing through. The resident said it had been ongoing since 2004 and she had complained to the landlord on several occasions.
The landlord’s internal correspondence on 28 February 2024, stated the landlord’s disrepair surveyor inspected the property on 13 February 2023. The findings included:
1. Mould to the bottom of the sitting room window frame. This was noted as very minor and needed washing off as part of normal household cleaning.
2. Paintwork damaged to the porch. It was noted the surveyor advised the high-level garden bed next to the porch needed clearing back to allow the porch wall to dry out.

The correspondence noted the disrepair case was completed and to be closed.

On 29 April 2024, the resident’s solicitor issued a letter of claim to the landlord. It stated they were using the Housing Conditions Protocol. The defects in the claim included water penetration in the downstairs hallway, damp and mould in the bedrooms, and concerns about the exterior of the property. In regard to the downstairs hallway, the claim stated the resident reported this to the landlord from November 2022 and the landlord failed to take action.
On 3 June 2024, the resident told this Service that repairs had not been completed, water was running down walls and she experienced electric shocks from wet electrics. The resident said the damp and mould was affecting her health. The resident said she had a heart condition, and recently had a pacemaker fitted. The resident said the repairs were impacting her physical and mental health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

In raising her complaint, the resident referred to the situation impacting upon her health. While this Service can assess the service the landlord provided, and any overall distress or inconvenience this may have caused, the investigation cannot directly assess any reported impact on health or the liability for impacts on health and wellbeing, as this is better suited for the courts.
In raising her complaint to this service, the resident reported concerns about outstanding repairs from a disrepair claim in 2021 and stated the repairs had been ongoing for 8 years. There was no evidence provided to this Service that this claim proceeded through to court action. However, this investigation has focused on the issues raised in the resident’s complaint on 22 September 2023. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords within a reasonable timeframe of the matters arising. This is so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
The landlord provided evidence to this Service of an expert witness report following a disrepair claim made by the resident in September 2021, and details of a further claim made in April 2024. There was no evidence provided by either the landlord or the resident that either claim had progressed through to court action. Therefore issues raised within these claims have been referred to and assessed within this report where appropriate.
In raising her complaint to this service, the resident reported concerns about a leak from the roof in November 2023 and subsequent water ingress through the windows and ceiling, paint coming off walls, and receiving an electric shock from a light switch and a repair to guttering. In accordance with the Ombudsman’s jurisdictional authority under the Scheme, and in the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint on 22 September 2023. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the investigation of this Service. Any further issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

Policies, procedures & legal obligations.

The landlord’s resident’s handbook, on its website, says the landlord is responsible for maintaining and repairing the structure and exterior of the building including the repair of water and roof leaks, structural repairs to walls, floors and ceilings, and maintaining external doors, window frames and sills. It says the resident is responsible for maintaining and renewing internal decorations.
The landlord’s responsive repairs procedure says routine repairs are completed within 20 working days. Major repairs or complex works are undertaken as per its stock investment policy and procedures. The procedure says the landlord is responsible for the repair to garages, internal and external walls, and water leaks.
The landlord’s complaints procedure says it operates a 2 stage complaints process. The landlord will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It will respond at stage 1 of the complaints process within 10 workings days of the formal acknowledgement. The landlord will provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days of receipt of an escalation request.
The landlord’s compensation procedure says financial compensation may be appropriate where the landlord has not taken the appropriate action or has been delayed in doing so, a resident has sustained financial loss, loss of amenity or loss of room, a resident has been misinformed and given incorrect information leading to payment of unnecessary fees and costs, and where a resident has suffered stress and anxiety.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the garage door.

The landlord confirmed in its final response that the resident raised the repair to the garage door in June 2023. This Service was not provided with the exact date this repair was reported. It is essential that landlord’s records retain accurate repair information to provide effective services to its residents.
The landlord’s contractor confirmed on 15 November 2023 that the repair to the garage door was completed. This was a timeframe of over 4 months. The landlord failed to meet the timescales in its responsive repairs policy of 20 working days.
It was evident the resident had to follow up with the landlord, resulting in her raising a complaint in order for the repair to happen. The landlord’s repair records noted a repair was raised in August 2023 to the garage door. However, there was no evidence provided to this Service of the actions it had taken prior to booking the repair appointment on 29 September 2023 at stage 1 of the complaints process. No evidence was provided to this Service of the landlord updating the resident prior to her complaint.
At stage 1 of the complaints process the landlord booked a repair appointment for the garage door on 29 September 2023. This appointment was missed. While this Service acknowledge this caused inconvenience to the resident, it was noted the contractor informed the resident of the error it made and re booked the appointment.
In its final response on 10 November 2023, the landlord told the resident the repair would be completed by 1 December 2023. This was an appropriate action by the landlord to inform the resident of the expected timescale for the completion of the repair.
To provide a fair response, landlords are expected to resolve complaints by addressing both the main issue raised and any inconvenience that happened. When a landlord agrees that it failed to provide a service, the expectation is for the landlord to offer redress. The landlord attempted to resolve this part of the resident’s complaint through an offer of compensation of £400 in its final response.
The offer of redress made by the landlord shows good practice in trying to resolve complaints and learn from outcomes. The landlord considered the time and trouble taken by the resident to follow up on this complaint, the distress and inconvenience caused, and acknowledged its delay. It also increased this amount from the £300 offered at stage 1 to account for the further delay and missed appointment.
The landlord acknowledged its delay in repairing the garage door, it apologised for this, and offered the resident compensation. The compensation offered was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It was not clear if the resident had the full use of her garage while the repair remained outstanding. The resident had also taken the time and trouble to chase up the repair with the landlord. The compensation offered was in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance. Therefore, it is the opinion of this Service that the £400 offered by the landlord was reasonable redress.

The resident’s reports about outstanding repairs to windows and doors.

The landlord confirmed its position stated at stage 1 in its final response that it had not agreed to replace the living room windows. This Service has not been provided with evidence of when the resident first raised a repair report about the windows in her living room. However, the disrepair claim made by the resident in September 2021 reported that all windows in the property were damaged.
The schedule of works provided by the landlord from January 2022 showed work required to renew or repair trickle vents to windows and to overhaul PVCu windows in the sitting room. No evidence has been provided to the Service to demonstrate that there was outstanding repairs to replace windows or doors. It is also noted the resident had not responded to contradict the landlord’s position in its stage 1 response. Therefore, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs to windows and doors.

The resident’s reports about outstanding repairs to the hallway.

It was acknowledged that the repairs to the hallway raised in the resident’s complaint in September 2023 and addressed by the landlord during the complaints process is separate to the resident’s further reports of a leak in November 2023. The landlord confirmed this to the resident in an email on 10 November 2023.
The outstanding repair to the hallway is in relation to a disrepair claim from 2021. This Service has not been provided with the full records relating to the repairs in the hallway. As such it has not been possible to establish when the repair to the hallway was first raised by the resident or when repairs have previously been completed.
The repair logs provided for this repair lacked details of the action taken by the landlord. A schedule of works from January 2022 and April 2023 were included, but this did not provide completion dates for the work.
Clear record keeping is a core function of repair, and wider landlord services. It allows evidence to be provided to the Ombudsman when requested. More importantly, clear record keeping is essential to enable landlords to monitor outstanding reports and issues and provide effective services to its residents. This is of particular importance when repair responsibilities are shared with an external third party. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management sets out expectations for landlords on how they manage housing information. The report specifically refers to the need for “accurate and robust record keeping”.
An improvement in the landlord’s record-keeping would result in significant benefits for both it and residents. It would enable accurate information to be shared across teams and with residents which would improve the landlord’s response. It would also help with our investigations by improving our understanding of the situation at the time. More broadly, it would allow the landlord to better understand the resident, the history of the property and previous actions in relation to the repairs completed so that it could consider the most appropriate response.
It was not possible for the Service to establish how long the repairs to the hallway had been outstanding. It was evident the landlord identified the high-level garden bed next to the porch needed clearing back to allow the porch wall to dry out following an inspection in February 2023. It was also evident the repair remains unresolved as repairs to the hallway were raised by the resident again to the landlord in April 2024 in a further disrepair claim.
The landlord confirmed in its final response to the resident that it was currently trying to contact the adjoined resident to obtain permission to remove soil as it believed that high bed levels were causing the issue. While this accounts for a part of the delay in resolving the issues, the landlord did not provide any evidence to this Service of the steps it had taken here to resolve this issue for the resident prior to her complaint. The schedule of works from April 2023 included work to remove loose paint and redecorate the porch. It was not clear when this work was completed or if this related to the current issues in the hallway. However, the resident raised in her complaint to the landlord in September 2023 that she was still experiencing leaks into the hallway and paint flaking off.
The landlord’s internal correspondence from February 2024, stated a surveyor visited the property in February 2023 and noted paint work was damaged to the porch and that it advised the high-level garden bed next to the porch needed clearing back to allow the porch wall to dry out. This demonstrated the landlord was aware works were required to the high-level garden bed in 2023. The landlord’s internal correspondence in February 2024, stated this repair was closed. It was not clear if it was closed within the disrepair team or the repair closed completely. It was evident here the landlord failed to complete the repair within an appropriate timeframe, having identified the issue with high bed levels in 2023.
In its complaint responses, the landlord did not provide the resident with a timeframe for reviewing the matter or provide information about the next steps it would take once permission was received from the adjoining resident. It also did not demonstrate it looked into any alternative ways of resolving the issue for the resident or provide any repairs in the interim to the walls. As a result, the resident was not clear about what repairs would take place and when she could expect a further update. The resident reported to this Service that she had a heart condition and the ongoing issues impacted her physical and mental health. The landlord did not demonstrate a customer focused approach here.
The landlord confirmed to this service that it had disabilities recorded for the resident. However, it was not clear if this included the resident’s health vulnerabilities. As such, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss any vulnerabilities that should be recorded for the household, to ensure its records are accurate and up to date.
Although its stage 1 response offered the resident compensation of £300 in total, at stage 2 this compensation, increased to £400, was set out to be in relation to the repair to the garage door only. The landlord here failed to acknowledge it had delayed in its handling of the repairs to the resident’s hallway. The landlord did not attempt to put things right for the resident.
In summary, the lack of information provided to this Service hindered the investigation into this part of the resident’s complaint. The repair records provided lacked details on the action taken, the full details of surveys completed by the landlord, and the detail of work or investigations that had taken place.
It was evident the landlord failed to meet the timescales in its repairs policy. It was acknowledged the landlord stated it needed to gain permission from the adjoining resident. However, it was not clear enough on the actions it would take once permission was received, did not provide an expected timeframe for the works, and did not provide an indication of when the resident could expect to receive an update on this or offer any repairs in the meantime. The landlord had not provided evidence that having identified the need to obtain permissions from a neighbour, it followed through on this requirement in a prompt and efficient manner.
The landlord did not demonstrate communication with the resident on this repair, or that it retained an oversight of the repair. Overall, the response provided by the landlord lacked a customer focused approach. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about outstanding repairs to her hallway. Compensation of £450 has been ordered. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases where the landlord’s failures have occurred over a protracted period, adversely affected a resident, and the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings.
It was not clear if the repairs to the hallway have been completed. The resident stated the hallway still required repair in her letter of claim to the landlord in April 2024. As such, an order has been made for the landlord to arrange to inspect the resident’s hallway and provide an expected timescales for any identified works outstanding.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs to the garage door.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about outstanding repairs to windows and doors.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about outstanding repairs to her hallway.

Reasons

The landlord failed to complete the repairs to the resident’s garage within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord acknowledged its delay and offered the resident appropriate compensation to account for her time and trouble in pursuing the issue, and the distress and inconvenience caused.
There was no evidence provided to this Service which demonstrated a repair to replace the windows and patio doors were outstanding.
The landlord did not demonstrate it acted in an appropriate timeframe to address the repairs to the walls in the hallway. It did not provide the resident with a timeframe for the action it was taking. The landlord failed to provide records to demonstrate the work it completed in relation to the hallway to attempt to resolve the issue.

Orders and recommendations

Orders.

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident total compensation of £850. This amount includes the £400 offered during the complaints process. Compensation not already paid, should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:
1. £400 as previously offered for the distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs to the garage door.
2. £450 for the distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about outstanding repairs to the hallway.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange an inspection of the resident’s hallway, to include but not limited to the water ingress and damage to paint on the walls.
2. Confirm to the resident in writing, the outcome of the inspection. This must include the expected timescales for any identified works.

Recommendations.

The landlord should review its staff training needs in regard to the importance of communicating with residents throughout the repair process.
The landlord reviews its record-keeping practices and considers providing additional staff training to ensure it is keeping clear and accurate records relating to repairs.
The landlord should contact the resident to discuss any vulnerabilities that should be recorded for the household, to ensure its records are accurate and up to date.