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

Hyde Housing Association Limited (202012374)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012374

Hyde Housing Association Limited

28 September 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 resident complains about the landlord’s handling of a request for compensation in relation to claims for damage caused by damp and mould, and the running costs of ventilation equipment.

Background

  1. The landlord’s complaint and compensation policy as was in place at the time set out a two stage complaint process. If the customer was not satisfied with the response at stage one, a Head of Service or a Director would then review the stage one response, with an aim to respond at stage two not later than twenty working days from the complaint escalation.
  2. The policy states that the landlord would always try to provide a prompt response, and at the outset of an investigation it would contact the customer to discuss the case and to agree arrangements for providing updates and preferred method of communication. Customers could expect to receive regular updates from a named person. If the landlord was unable to provide a full response within the target timescale it would advise the customer that additional time was required and ask how frequently they would like updates.
  3. Compensation payments may be paid at the discretion of managers and may be offered where:
    1. The landlord had failed to deliver a service to the advertised standard
    2. In recognition of the time and trouble taken by the customer to make their complaint
    3. In recognition of distress and inconvenience experienced by the customer
    4. To reflect where a customer has suffered a loss because of a service failure by the landlord.
  4. Compensation payments may be used to offset rent or other arrears in the first instance. Reimbursements would be paid regardless of arrears on a rent account.

Summary of events

  1. A stage one response from the landlord, addressed to the resident and dated 5 March 2020, responds to a complaint about a boiler repair, referring to the complaint having been logged by the resident’s representative in January 2020 (the Ombudsman has not been provided with a copy of the January 2020 complaint). The letter noted that when the representative had been contacted on 4 February 2020 to discuss the boiler complaint, he had referred to the filters in the Positive Ventilation Unit (PIV) present in the property needing to be changed, and stating that he would be making a stage one complaint about this matter also, suggesting that this was causing health problems to the resident.
  2. The landlord’s letter to the resident noted that it extended its involvement at this point and investigated this issue also, determining that the filter had already been changed in early January 2020. The landlord said that the representative had then contacted it on 18 February 2020 requesting that a surveyor attend to investigate mould, which was felt to be exacerbating health issues. The stage one letter said that this was not a ‘required visit’ as the resident himself had stated that there was no mould in his home. £150 in compensation was offered in relation to the boiler issues.
  3. A further letter from the landlord in reference to this complaint, dated 5 November 2020, sets out that a compensation review had been carried out, with an increased offer of £300 in relation to the boiler repair.
  4. In a letter to the landlord dated 15 January 2021 referring to the 2020 complaint, the resident’s representative detailed a number of what he considered to be failings on the part of the landlord regarding the boiler issues and complaint handling. As part of the list of failings, he also said that the landlord had installed the PIV unit at some point in the past, the purpose of which was to combat a pre-existing mould problem. The representative  said that the filters required annual change as per the manufacturer’s recommendations, but in the last year the landlord had not been able to confirm dates that this had occurred. The representative said that mould had again become an issue in the property and had caused damage to furniture and clothing, saying that photographs of this had been sent to the landlord in August 2020. The representative said that the maintenance and repairs to the PIV unit were the landlord’s responsibility making the related problems experienced by the resident ‘undeniable’. He asked that the landlord look again at its offer of £300 compensation.
  5. The representative also made contact with this Service around the same time to raise a number of issues. This Service then wrote to the landlord in March 2021 noting that the 5 of November 2020 letter didn’t appear to be a final response to the complaint, and asked the landlord to provide a final response. This Service also asked the landlord to contact the resident directly to discuss the details of the complaint and the resolution sought.
  6. On the 13 of May 2021 the representative wrote a further letter to the landlord in which he again referred to a number of different complaints/failings. In relation to the PIV units, he noted that the complaints were about its purpose, a failure to maintain since it had been installed, that the landlord had not been able to provide information about when the units had been installed, and compensation for damaged property.
  7. On the 28 of May 2021 the representative wrote a further letter to the landlord, again referring to a number of concerns which included damage to the resident’s personal property from mould growth, which he said had been caused by the failure to carry out regular maintenance to the PIV system. The representative noted that it had been the fourth year in a row that the resident had to remind the landlord about changing the filter. Further, when operatives had finally attended to do so in May 2021, they attempted to clean the filter with the resident’s vacuum cleaner rather than replacing it. In this letter the representative also referred to failures by the landlord to compensate the resident for the energy used by the PIV unit.
  8. The Ombudsman also wrote in the landlord around this time, again asking it to provide a final response
  9. The landlord provided a final response on the 29 of June 2021, addressing a complaint about the boiler, as well as the complaint about the PIV unit. it acknowledged that it had agreed to change the filter yearly, and that in May 2021 the filter should have been replaced rather than hoovered. The landlord said that the filter would now be replaced annually as per the manufacturer’s instructions, and not cleaned, stating, ‘I am so sorry that should have been better communication sent to the engineer that attended to complete the job correctly.’ It offered a total of £800 in compensation for the boiler and the PIV  unit complaint, saying that this was  for the time and trouble in pursuing matters, as well as distress and inconvenience caused.
  10. On the 9 of July 2021 the representative asked for a breakdown of the compensation amount awarded. Around the same time the representative also spoke with the landlord regarding the £800 compensation offer. He explained that the resident was dissatisfied with this as it did not address several elements of the complaint, including the cost to power the PIV unit, and damage to clothing, a wardrobe, and a chest of draws from damp and mould.
  11. On 21 of July 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident with what it described as a final review letter. It said that it would not be changing its decision on the case, which it had made based on the information that had been provided to it. It stated that it had checked all the details of the complaint thoroughly, and responded to all points made, and that there was no further information about the complaint to consider and so it would not be changing its decision.
  12. In a further letter to the landlord dated the 24 of July 2021 the representative noted that he had not been provided with the breakdown of the £800, and was still awaiting the installation dates of the PIV unit, and said that this information was required to be able to calculate the operating costs for historic and future reimbursement. He said that the landlord had failed to compensate the resident for energy use for the system since it had been installed.

Assessment and findings

  1. The representative has explained in his complaint to the Ombudsman that the resident is dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered by the landlord, which he believes should be higher to reflect the damage caused to clothes (at approximately £2000) and furniture (at around £900) in the property which he states occurred due to a failure to change the filter in the PIV unit.
  2. The representative  also believes that the electricity costs associated with the use of PIV unit in the property should be paid for by the landlord, backdated to the installation date, and also reimbursed going forward. The representative  has explained the electricity usage is around £120 per year, and states, ‘The landlord agreed to reimburse the resident operating cost prior to the system’s installation as it was connected to his electrical supply. Hyde have never honoured their agreement but when this was brought to their attention during our investigation, this was acknowledged but never put in place in 3 or 4 complaint actions between 2018 to 2021.’ The representative says that the PIV unit was installed around 2010 (although the landlord has been unable to confirm his), and so this equates to around £1,440, plus payments going forward.
  3. The evidence available shows that the representative referred to a large number of concerns with the landlord in his 2021 communications. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that it can be challenging for landlords to respond to complaints of this nature, there is no indication that it made efforts to clarify the issues that were being raised, or manage expectations in terms of what it would and would not be able to consider as part of the complaint process. As noted above, in March 2021 the Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide a final response to the complaint, contacting the resident/representative directly to discuss the details of the complaint and the resolution sought. There is no indication that the landlord did so at any time. Neither is there evidence that, in line with policy, the resident was contacted at the outset of the investigation to discuss the case and to agree arrangements for providing updates.
  4. Even without the landlord taking action to clarify the complaint, the representative had clearly raised concerns about a failure to change the filter in the PIV unit causing damage to the resident’s belongings in his January 2021 correspondence. He stated this again in his May 2021 letters, referring to compensation. As such, this was a matter that the landlord should have directly addressed in its June 2021 final response.
  5. That the landlord did not acknowledge or address this was a failing: As set out in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, landlord’s should seek to address all points raised in a complaint. It would have been appropriate for it to have initially considered whether its actions may have contributed to the claimed damage (outside of any strict liability claim). If the landlord accepted that it had been at fault, the landlord should have ‘put right’ any damage caused (for example, by paying compensation), and/or facilitated a claim on its own insurance policy for damaged belongings. This approach is reflected in the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Complaints involving Insurance Issues (https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Guidance-on-Insurance.pdf). This would also have been in line with the landlord’s own complaint and compensation policy, which states that it may pay compensation where a customer has suffered a loss because of a service failure by the landlord.
  6. This failing led to an adverse affect to the resident, who experienced frustration that their request for compensation for damages was not addressed, and further time and trouble in pursuing the matter with the Ombudsman.
  7. In terms of the claim for reimbursements of running cost for the PIV unit, the Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s recollection that the landlord promised prior to the 2010 installation that it would pay for the energy used by the PIV unit in perpetuity. However, this is not something that is mentioned in the March 2020 stage one response, and neither was this subject raised specifically in the representative’s letters and complaints to the landlord in 2021. It was not until the representative’s 28 of May 2021 letter that reimbursement of running costs was mentioned, although this did not refer to an agreement made prior to the unit being installed. As such, it was perhaps not such a significant failing that the landlord did not then address this in its subsequent stage two response a month later. However, had the landlord taken steps to clarify the complaint with the representative, this omission could have been avoided. 
  8. These failings are further compounded by the landlord’s 21 July 2021 letter, where it stated that it had checked all the details of the complaint thoroughly, and responded to all points made: As described above, the information available indicates that this was not the case.
  9. Finally, it took several months for the landlord to provide a final response, despite communications from both the representative and this Service. There is no indication that the resident/ representative was kept updated or advised that additional time was required, as per the landlord’s policy. This caused additional time and trouble, as well as frustration. No explanation or apology for this delay was provided in the June 2021 letter.

Determination (decision)

  1. In line with section 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration on the part of the landlord in its handling of a request for compensation in relation to claims for damage by damp and mould, and the running costs of ventilation equipment.

Reasons

  1. There were failings on the part of the landlord in clarifying the complaint, managing expectations, and addressing all of the issues raised, which has caused frustration, time and trouble. As such, orders for remedy are made below.

Orders

  1. Within one month of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident £175 for the adverse affect the failings caused.
    2. Consider the request for compensation for damaged belongings (obtaining more details of this from the resident), taking into account the Ombudsman’s ‘Guidance on Complaints involving Insurance Issues’. Confirm the outcome of this in writing to both the resident and this Service. 
    3. Consider the request for compensation for running costs of the PIV unit from the date of its installation going forwards, and confirm the outcome of this in writing to both the resident and this Service (to include reference to the resident’s recollection that it was previously agreed that these costs would be covered).