Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Hyde Housing Association Limited (202005388)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005388

Hyde Housing Association Limited

15 March 2022

 

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 bath replacement.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. On 19 June 2020, the resident reported that the enamel in her bath had come off. A contractor attended on 30 June to re-enamel it. The resident reported the same issue on 21 July. A surveyor attended on 29 July and recommended a bath replacement. A contractor attended again on 21 August, and recommended a follow-up appointment which would require two operatives.
  3. The specific timing is unclear, but in either August or September 2020 the contractors advised the resident that in order to carry out the replacement, they needed her to remove a glass table from her hallway or sign a disclaimer in case they damaged it. The table impeded their access with the new bath.
  4. Contractors attended on 5 September 2020 to replace the bath. The landlord’s records show they refused to carry out the work as the “tenant was abusive” towards them. The landlord rebooked the appointment for 5 October.
  5. On 2 October 2020, the resident called the landlord. Its records show she asked that a particular operative attend. The landlord advised the operative was unavailable and put the works on hold.
  6. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord over the phone on 2 October 2020. The landlord’s call notes show she was dissatisfied it had not ordered a new bath despite contractors attending three times. She said she believed she had wasted her time. She said she did not want the same contractor company to attend.
  7. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 17 November 2020. It said it had asked another contractor company to attend but they declined, as they said they previously had a difficult relationship with the resident. It said its contractors noted that they did not want to return to her property in early September due to difficulties in communications with her. It apologised that the relationship between herself and the contractors had broken down. It acknowledged that the resident did not want to move her glass table or sign a disclaimer. It said the resident had explained that when the bath was installed a few years before, the table was in place, and she did not have to sign a disclaimer. It said its contractors had confirmed that they would not reattend unless she signed the disclaimer. It concluded by explaining how the resident could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
  8. The resident responded to the landlord on 20 November 2020. She said she thought it was unreasonable for her to sign the disclaimer. She said the surveyor had advised her that they did not believe she needed to move her table. She referred to missed appointments (but did not provide further details). She said the landlord had missed out “quite a lot of months and weeks of poor service” in its complaint response. She said she had been waiting for six months for the replacement and was seeking compensation for the “six month of service failure”. The landlord’s officer acknowledged the resident’s email the same day, and advised they would let their superior know she was dissatisfied with its resolution.
  9. Following correspondence from the resident, this Service emailed the landlord on 20 November 2020. We asked it to contact the resident to discuss her complaint. We contacted the landlord again on 3 December as the resident advised she had received a response. We asked the landlord to clarify with the resident what stage of its complaint procedure she was at.
  10. The landlord confirmed with this Service on 20 January 2021 that it had provided the resident its stage one complaint response, and she was still able to escalate it.
  11. Following a phone call from the resident to this Service on 29 January 2021, we advised the landlord that the resident said she escalated her complaint on 3 December 2020 (there is no evidence of this escalation) but had not received a final response. We asked it to provide a final response within 20 working days.
  12. The landlord contacted this Service on 9 February 2021. It asked for assistance in mediating with the resident to find a resolution to her complaint. It explained that it was unable to replace the bath with the table in place.
  13. The resident called this Service on 26 February 2021. We explained what the landlord had informed us on 9 February. The resident said she was not willing to move the table and said a surveyor had advised her that it did not need to be moved. On 3 March we asked the landlord to contact the surveyor and confirm whether it was necessary to move the table. On 12 March the landlord advised this Service that the surveyor had explained that it could replace the bath with an acrylic one (instead of steel), as this was lighter to carry and would mean the table could stay in place.
  14. The resident called this Service on 15 March 2021. She said she had not received a final complaint response from the landlord. We asked the landlord on 20 March to provide a response within 10 working days.
  15. Following a phone call with the resident on 12 April 2021 this Service contacted the landlord. We explained that the resident sought compensation for the time taken to repair (replace) her bath. We said she did not think the landlord had addressed all the issues she raised in her original complaint, and that she did not feel comfortable with two contractors in her home and would like someone to attend and oversee their work.  In another email to the landlord on that day, we asked it to provide a complaint response within five working days.
  16. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 19 April 2021 stating they had replaced her bath (it is unclear when) without removing her table. It said it had reviewed its previous response and found it fair and appropriate. It apologised for the time taken to reach a resolution. It said there were no outstanding repairs, or information for it to investigate. It concluded by explaining how the resident could refer her complaint to this Service if she remained dissatisfied. However, it was confirmed in November 2021 that the bath replacement had not taken place as previously stated. Bath related works were completed in January 2022, 19 months after the original complaint was made.

Assessment and findings

Handling of the bath replacement

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it will attend to non-urgent repairs within 20 working days. In this case, the resident’s bath replacement would not necessarily be deemed as a repair given that the evidence shows it was still in working order. The landlord would therefore not have been bound by any specific timeframes. It would, however, still be expected to carry out the replacement within a reasonable period.
  2. It is not disputed that there was a significant delay from when the landlord decided to replace the bath to when the work was completed. Nevertheless, the evidence shows it took reasonable steps during this time in response to the resident’s concerns. For example, it attended promptly following her reports in June and July. It attended again in August and arranged further appointments for September and October. It also asked another contractor to attend following the conflict that arose between the resident and the landlord’s contractors.
  3. Given that the contractors and resident were unable to reach an agreement, or compromise in terms of the removal of the glass table, there were limited steps the landlord could take to ensure the replacement was carried out quickly. There is no evidence to show that the delay was a direct cause of any of the landlord’s actions or inactions. It was reasonable for it to respect the contractor’s request for the resident to sign the disclaimer, and it was also reasonable for it to respect the resident’s refusal to sign.
  4. Ultimately, in the circumstances of this complaint, the delay was not unreasonable given the obstacles faced by the landlord and given that it clearly explained these obstacles to the resident in its stage one complaint response. However, the landlord relied on incorrect information from the contractors when it stated in its stage two response that the bath replacement was complete. The landlord was informed of this error, and it took a total of 19 months for the bath to be replaced which is excessive even with the obstacles faced.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will issue its stage two complaint response within 20 working days or update the resident if it requires more time.
  2. The resident explained to this Service that she escalated her complaint on 3 December 2020. There is no evidence of this request. Nonetheless, she emailed the landlord on 20 November 2020 and set out why she was dissatisfied with its response. This Service contacted the landlord in November and December 2020 encouraging it to contact the resident to discuss her complaint. We asked it on 29 January 2021 to respond to her complaint within 20 working days. We asked it again on 20 March and 12 April to respond to her complaint. It issued its stage two complaint response on 19 April 2021.
  3. There was an unreasonable delay from when the resident first notified the landlord of her dissatisfaction with its stage one response, to it issuing its final response. Although the landlord did take steps to resolve the complaint in February and March 2021, it was unreasonable for it to postpone its response considering this Service asked it to respond multiple times and given that there is no evidence of it providing any updates about the status of the complaint.
  4. In the landlord’s stage two complaint response it said it had resolved the issues, and there were no outstanding matters for it to investigate. However, on 12 April 2021 this Service advised it that, among other things, the resident sought compensation for the delays. As explained above, we have not identified any failings in terms of the bath replacement which would warrant compensation. Nevertheless, the landlord should have addressed the request, especially considering she first asked for compensation on 20 November 2020 in an email which it acknowledged.
  5. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out that landlords should address all points raised in a complaint. In this case, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaint in its entirety as it did not address any of the points raised to it by this Service on 12 April 2021. Its stage two response lacked detail and the resident waited almost five months for a response which did not acknowledge her concerns.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s bath replacement.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

  1. The landlord relied on incorrect information and failed to confirm with the resident that her bath replacement had taken place. Even after being informed of the error, it took an excessive amount of time to complete a straightforward bath replacement.
  1. The landlord took reasonable steps to carry out the bath replacement. However, its stage two complaint response was delayed, and it failed to address all aspects of the resident’s complaint. The impact of this poor complaint handling was the inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 for the inconvenience and delay experienced as a result of the failings identified with its handling of the resident’s bath replacement. (This is in addition to the £150 already paid to the resident).
  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 for the inconvenience and delay experienced as a result of the failings identified with its complaint handling.

This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when the payment has been made.

Recommendations

  • The landlord to discuss with its contractor a suitable solution for fixing the loose handle on the resident’s bathtub.