Habinteg Housing Association Limited (202214063)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214063

Habinteg Housing Association Limited

25 January 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 an interruption to its provision of communal laundry facilities during major work.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. He moved into the property in March 2022. The property is a 1 bedroom third floor flat in a block of flats (the block). The resident said he was told that he could not have a washing machine or dryer in his flat. When he moved into the property there was one communal laundry room on the ground floor.
Before the resident moved in, the landlord started a process to install a new lift. It consulted with the block’s residents before beginning the installation. The landlord has said the resident was told about this work when he signed for his tenancy. In around June 2022, the landlord decided that a second laundry room was required whilst the works were ongoing. Subsequently, a second laundry room was opened on the third floor.
On 28 June 2022 the resident reported the communal dryer was not working. Two days later he raised concerns the landlord had not consulted the residents when it decided to create a second laundry room. The landlord replied to say the lift works meant the ground floor laundry would be inaccessible to disabled residents. So, it provided the third floor drying room. It said the laundry room on the ground floor contained 2 washing machines and 1 dryer. However, when the second room was created 1 of the washing machines was moved to the third floor.
The resident emailed the landlord on 22 July 2022. He said that the dryer had not been working for a month and he was chasing for an update. The landlord replied on the same day. It told the resident it was awaiting parts for the dryer and expected repairs to be complete on 27 July 2022.
On 28 July 2022 the resident contacted the landlord. He reported:
1. The communal dryer was still not working.
2. The ground floor laundry room had been partitioned and one of the washing machines was removed.
3. There was only 1 working washing machine for 16 flats and no dryer.
4. He was frustrated with the number of times he reported the issue.
The landlord responded the same day. It apologised for any inconvenience. It said its contractor had problems sourcing the parts from overseas. In addition, it would investigate the partition and update the resident. It also said it would place a note in the communal area to update residents and apologise for the inconvenience caused.
In an email on 10 August 2022 the resident said that there was 1 washing machine available for “the whole building” after the second washing machine flooded the third floor laundry. He asked the landlord to raise a complaint about the dryer on 15 August 2022. He said the dryer was out of service for over 2 months and this was an unacceptable timescale. In addition, despite persistent enquiries, residents were not kept up to date.
In a further email on 19 August 2022 the resident said the third floor laundry was “locked off”. He asked the landlord to repair the washing machine as soon as possible.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 23 August 2022. This was around 7 working days after the resident’s complaint. It addressed the faulty dryer. It said:
1. The landlord was sorry for the delays in repairing the tumble dryer.
2. Delays occurred because a part had to be ordered from outside of the UK.
3. The tumble dryer had since been repaired.
4. It did not offer compensation for the repairs but offered a “good will gesture” to all residents of £10 per household.
The resident made another complaint to the landlord on 28 August 2022. He said:
1. The ground floor laundry room was a third of its original size. This meant there was not enough room to open the door, load or remove washing. The change was made without consulting with residents.
2. The third floor laundry room was closed to the residents. There had been no communication from the landlord to update residents.
3. The tumble dryer was not working and had been “out of action for 3 months”. There was no communication from the landlord about this to residents.
4. There had been no power to the laundry room over the past weekend. The resident had to use a laundrette.
On 31 August 2022, the resident escalated his complaint. He reiterated several of his previous concerns. The new points were:
1. He felt that the landlord was responsible to keep communal facilities in working order.
2. Compensation should be given to all tenants for the distress and inconvenience caused.
The landlord replied the same day and acknowledged the complaint. It told the resident he would receive a response within 10 working days, no later than 14 September 2022.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 2 and 7 September 2022. He said that he had raised the issue “a considerable amount of times over the last few months”. He said that the tumble dryer was not working. There was no update when the new laundry room would be available.
The landlord replied to the resident on 9 September 2022. It said:
1. There had been several breakdowns with the washing machine and dryer. It was working with its contractor to determine the cause.
2. The washing machine on the third floor had been repaired. The third floor laundry room was useable.
3. The dryer was due to be repaired either 9 or 12 September 2022.
4. The laundry on the ground floor was closed and would be reopened on 14 September 2022.
5. The dryer was due to be moved back from the third to ground floor.
6. It was considering getting a second dryer.
7. There were notices in place updating residents.
8. It acknowledged the statement made by the resident that no updates had been provided for 2 weeks. The contractor would provide regular updates to residents, even when there was no new information.
9. Contractors were reminded to close the laundry room doors.
The landlord wrote a second stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 13 September 2022. It responded to each of the resident’s complaint points separately. It said:
1. The landlord knew its lift works would impact the block’s laundry facilities. This was communicated during the original consultation. An additional laundry was created on the third floor.
2. The third-floor laundry room was available for use from the week commencing the 12 September 2022.
3. The dryer was unavailable due to a repair issue between 28 June 2022 until 22 August 2022. The landlord was sorry the repair took longer than anticipated.
4. There was a new commercial tumble dryer on order.
5. Notices were in place advising residents of the issues.
6. It apologised for any disruption that the reduced facilities had caused.
7. It would reimburse the service charge costs to the value of £10 for the period “which is above the charges for this service” as a further “good will” gesture due to the disruption caused.
8. It was “working hard” to ensure that it resolved the issues with the service providers and requested a report for the cause of the breakdowns to resolve any future occurrences.
9. It apologised that there was no power to the laundry room for a short period. It was not planned and was caused due to the fuse board tripping. When this was discovered, it was re-started, however it understood that it happened a few times over a weekend. It arranged an inspection to identify the issue to avoid future occurrences.
10. It apologised that the resident did not feel updated with the issues. It said that there had been previous communications through newsletters and direct consultation. It had put additional actions in place to ensure that weekly updates were provided sharing the information received by the contractors.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 15 September 2022. He said its deadlines had passed. However, there were no further updates from the landlord. In a further email on 16 September 2022, he referred to a conversation with the landlord. He reiterated his concerns about the time taken to repair the washing machine. He stressed that residents were not permitted to have their own washing machines.
The parties exchanged emails on 25 September 2022. The resident asked:
1. If closers would be fitted to the laundry room door. He said there were issues with residents leaving the door open causing noise disturbances to the surrounding flats.
2. If a sink would be installed in the laundry rooms. He said the ground floor laundry had a sink that was removed during the lift works. He said residents were using a bucket to dispose of excess liquid. There were increased risks of trips and falls due to dripping wet items being carried between the laundry and other rooms.
3. The tumble dryer was not working. There was a sign on top of the dryer saying it would not work because the wrong fuse was in the switch.
The landlord responded to say:
1. All laundry room doors were being fitted with fire rated sliding pocket doors with self-closing devices.
2. Sinks would not be fitted in either laundry since there was insufficient room. This was discussed during the original tenant consultation when it determined sinks were not necessary. It was considering extending the cleaners brief to include cleaning the laundry room.
3. The electrics serving the tumble dryer were being updated. It expected the work to be complete that week.
The resident chased the landlord’s stage 2 response on 3 October 2022. The landlord replied, from the discussion on 31 August 2022, it understood his concerns were a second (stage 1) complaint. It said that the issues with the laundry were upheld and “a fair compensation offer was presented for the inconvenience”. A further stage one complaint about laundry facilities in general was also sent to the resident in September 2022. It said this was its final response to the resident’s request to escalate to stage two of its complaints process.
The resident disputed the landlord’s findings on 5 October 2022. He said:
1. When he spoke to the landlord on 31 August 2022 it said he could not escalate his complaint to stage 2 as there were separate unrelated outstanding issues to the original complaint.
2. He requested that his complaint was escalated to stage 2 because he did not believe the stage 1 response was satisfactory.
3. He felt the landlord was unwilling to resolve the outstanding issues.
4. He was unhappy the landlord removed his option to escalate his complaint. He felt the landlord had treated him unfairly for the last 6 months. It had shut his complaints down rather than listen to and address the concerns raised.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 21 October 2022. He said the landlord should reimburse the costs he incurred while the tumble dryer was out of service. He also said the landlord had refused to escalate his complaint to stage 2.
On 24 October 2022, we asked the landlord to issue a stage 2 response by 21 November 2022.
The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 21 November 2022. It sent this response after a panel was arranged to hear the complaint. The resident was allowed to present evidence to the complaint panel. The response included other issues raised by the resident through its complaint process. In reference to the tumble dryer and laundry facilities it said:
1. It upheld this element of the resident’s complaint.
2. The resident told the panel that the laundry facilities were affected throughout the improvement works. He was dissatisfied with the level of communication from the landlord on these services.
3. It apologised for the disruption caused by development work. It referred to the repair log and said that there had been several breakdowns of the laundry machines in the block.
4. It recognised that there was one washing and one dryer working, and they were on different floors. A repair was scheduled for the second washing machine and an order had been raised to replace the tumble dryer.
5. It was not usually responsible for updating residents on its scheme about the progress of communal repair orders. It directed the resident to its phone number and email address. It said that it does occasionally update on works progress if requested to do so, but this is not part of its day to day activities.
6. A weekly update from its contractor was pinned up for tenant information most weeks. The resident informed the panel that there were weeks when this was missed.
7. Its staff made handwritten notes to inform residents about the washing machine breakdowns and updates.
8. Its communication regarding the laundry facilities and development works was unacceptable and this was a learning point for the landlord.
9. It would review the series of events so that learning can be identified that would ensure clear and consistent roles and responsibilities for updating tenants where communal facilities need repair or not available for any other reason.
10. The resident told the panel that he used a launderette because of a lack of provision in the block. He provided receipts for these. It agreed to reimburse his costs minus the £10 it had paid to all residents in recognition of the service being unavailable.
11. It should consider and propose how its team can collaborate more effectively to keep residents better informed of communal repairs or unavailability of communal services.
The resident wrote to the Ombudsman on 3 December 2022 asking for his complaint to be raised to the Service. He disputed the outcome of the stage 2 complaint. He gave us records that showed he continued to report issues with the laundry room to the landlord, which included the washing machine and dryer being out of service.
The landlord installed a second dryer in November 2022. The works were completed on 20 January 2023.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 December 2022. It offered him £36 to reimburse his additional laundry costs.
The Ombudsman has discretion to consider the following significant events that have occurred since the resident’s complaint completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. There are records showing that the resident continued to report leaks from the third floor washing machine to the landlord until 26 March 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the Investigation

The resident provided evidence of reports made to the landlord since the complaint concluded the landlords internal complaints procedure. Some of these reports related directly to the repair of the dryer and washing machine. Many related to the quality of works such as issues with the doors to the laundry rooms and the installation of the washing machine. Since they have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure, they are beyond the scope of this investigation. The residents’ comments were noted; however, the Ombudsman has considered reports between 28 June 2022 and 26 March 2023.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance service standard set out timescales for repairs. They show the landlord aims to complete emergency repairs within 24 hours, this includes severe flooding or burst pipes. Urgent repairs are completed within 5 days and includes minor leaks or drips from pipes. Routine repairs are completed within 20 working days, this includes internal fixtures and electric sockets not working.
The landlord’s complaints policy shows it operated a two-stage complaint process. Complaints are acknowledged within 5 working days at stage 1 and responded to within 10 working days of acknowledgement. It will acknowledge requests for escalation to stage 2 within 5 working days and respond within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. If it decides not to progress a complaint to stage 2 a detailed explanation would be provided to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of an interruption to its provision of communal laundry facilities during major work

The resident said he relied on the landlord’s communal laundry facilities. He said that the landlord would not allow him to have his own washing machine. The communal laundry was an essential service for the resident.
The landlord’s records show the resident first reported issues relating to the communal laundry facilities on 28 June 2022. The initial concerns related to repairs to the dryer and later related to both the dryer and washing machine. There are 13 repairs logged by the landlord about the facilities between 28 June and 10 November 2022. The landlord recorded and acted on each report. It identified the cause of the faults and had to source specialist parts that caused delays. It is reasonable for delays to occur when they are outside of the landlord’s control. However, the problems with repairs were ongoing for around 5 months. The landlord should have considered alternatives provisions. If it had and determined they were not feasible, it should have communicated this to the residents. The delay was unreasonable in this case as the landlord offered no alternative provision.
The landlord did not effectively keep the residents updated during the works. It provided updates regarding the lift installation, but little information regarding the laundry provision in the block. The landlord provided a rota to the residents for access to the laundry rooms. The records show when the landlord did make changes to the rota, they did not reflect the availability of services due to the outstanding repairs to the machines. The residents were reliant on the communal facilities to wash and dry their clothes, as outlined by the resident in his emails to the landlord. It should have provided clearer communication to the residents to update them on the progress and give realistic timescales for the work to be complete.
The Ombudsman has considered whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports were appropriate, fair, and reasonable in the circumstances. Having reviewed the resident’s concerns at the panel hearing, the landlord acknowledged that its communication with residents could have been better. It recognised that its communication regarding the laundry facilities had not been acceptable and was a learning point for it to improve upon. It said it would review these events and ensure there were clear and consistent responsibilities to update residents regarding communal repairs. This demonstrated its intention to learn from outcomes. However, it did not put things right with the resident. There was substantial communication from the resident chasing updates from the landlord. It should have considered compensation for his time and trouble.
The landlord recognised that the changes to the ground floor laundry room meant a decrease in the laundry provision for the block. Its decision to purchase a second dryer showed that it was trying to put things right for the residents.
Despite the interventions by the landlord, the resident continued to report issues with the communal laundry facilities more than 3 months later. Many of these reports referred to issues of poor communication and delays to complete repairs to the washing machine. The loss of confidence that the landlord will complete the repairs or update the residents contributed to a break down in the landlord/tenant relationship in this case.
When determining what was fair in this case, the Ombudsman has considered the actions by the landlord and how it put things right. The landlord offered £46 compensation to the resident to cover his service charges and the expenses incurred using external laundry facilities. This does not fully compensate the resident for these failings. It did not consider the time and trouble taken by the resident contacting it for updates or the inconvenience the lack of provision caused. The Ombudsman finds that there has been service failure by the landlord’s handling of an interruption to its provision of communal laundry facilities during major work. It is ordered to pay the resident additional £100 compensation for his time and trouble.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy states it may not accept complaints regarding issues that have already been investigated and responded to under the policy. Where it decides not to accept complaints or to progress them to stage 2 if will provide a detailed explanation to the resident.
The resident made his first complaint regarding the time taken to repair the communal dryer on 19 August 2022. The landlord’s stage 1 response on 23 August 2022 did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It offered £10 as a good will gesture for a lack of laundry facilities. The response was timely and in line with its policy.
The resident’s request to escalate the complaint on 28 August 2022 included new issues regarding the size of the laundry room and communication by the landlord. It sent an acknowledgement on 31 August 2022 and said it had raised a stage 1 complaint. It was reasonable for the landlord to record a new complaint, rather than escalate to stage 2.
The landlord’s second stage 1 response on 13 September 2022 was also compliant with its complaints policy. It looked to put things right and learn from outcomes. It upheld the complaints regarding delays to complete the repair and communication. It found ways to improve its communication and offered a further good will payment to refund the service charges related to the laundry room.
The resident asked for an update on his request for stage 2 on 3 October 2022. The landlord replied on 5 October 2022 and said that it would not escalate his complaint to stage 2. It said the compensation offered and response provided on 13 September 2022 resolved the complaints. The response was reasonably detailed; however, the landlord changed this decision after contact with the Ombudsman on 21 October 2022. The Ombudsman considers the above actions to have caused unreasonable delays under the circumstances.
There was some confusion between the parties throughout the landlord’s complaint handling. Although the decision to log a second stage 1 complaint rather than escalate to stage 2 was reasonable, it was not made entirely clear to the resident. The decision to refuse the request to escalate to stage 2 after the second stage 1 complaint caused unreasonable delays. The Ombudsman finds that there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 for its complaint handling failures.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Service failure by the landlord in its handling of an interruption to its provision of communal laundry facilities during major work.
2. Service failure by the landlord in is complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £246 in compensation, including the £46 already offered. This sum includes:
1. £100 for the resident’s time and trouble.
2. £100 for its complaint handling failures.
Provide evidence of compliance with the above to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

The landlord should review how it can effectively update residents regarding communal repairs.