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

Hyde Housing Association Limited (202114528)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114528

Hyde Housing Association Limited

12 July 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 the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s floorboards and the level of compensation offered.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord. Her tenancy began in January 2020. The resident has advised that one of her family members has a disability.
  2. The resident initially reported squeaky and loose floorboards in two bedrooms and her stairs in January 2020 soon after moving in to the property. The evidence suggests that several appointments to re-fix the flooring had been arranged following an inspection in December 2020, however, the dates of these appointments are unclear. In June 2021, an appointment to re-fix the stairs was completed and the contractor reported that the stairs were safe but a bit squeaky.
  3. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord in July 2021. She advised that she had been reporting issues with the flooring in her property for 18 months and that her son frequently tripped on the flooring due to its condition. She reported that the flooring had begun to lift in areas, the floorboards were the wrong size and that they squeaked. She advised that numerous visits had taken place and she had been told that the floor boards would need to be replaced but only repairs had been attempted. She noted that contractors had attended with incorrect tools and on one occasion a decorator attended incorrectly. She later added that an appointment arranged for 17 August 2021 had been missed and that she had not been informed in advance. In addition, an appointment was attended on 20 August 2021, however, the agreed works were not completed and the contractors had replaced the nails in the floorboards. She expressed concern that there was not sufficient timber underneath the boards to secure them as they were still loose and squeaky. She explained that the issues were affecting her mental health and that her children were sleeping in the living room as a result of the unsafe flooring in the bedrooms.
  4. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord acknowledged that the resident had originally reported concerns in September 2020, following this, contractors had attended on three occasions but had not carried out repairs to a satisfactory standard. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised for the delay in rectifying the issues and the service the resident had received. It explained that contractors attended on 26 July 2021 to inspect the flooring and agreed to remove, re-bed and re-instate the floorboards on the stairs and screw down the floorboards in the bedrooms. An appointment was arranged for 17 August 2021; however, this was rearranged to 20 August 2021. The landlord apologised that it had not made the resident aware of the appointment change in advance. It confirmed that all works had been completed on 20 August 2021 and that there was nothing further it could do to prevent the squeaking floorboards. It explained that as the resident did not have floor coverings on the stairs and the underlay beneath the laminate in the bedrooms was not adequate, she would be more likely to hear squeaking. It explained that there would always be some level of squeaking but that the resident should place adequate underlay and floor coverings in these areas which would help to resolve the issues experienced. It offered the resident £175 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the missed appointments, delay in addressing the issues and its miscommunication.
  5. The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied that the landlord had advised that the work to her flooring had been completed when she did not feel that this was the case. She advised that her children were sleeping in the living room as a result of the ‘unsafe’ flooring in the bedrooms and that contractors had only replaced nails rather than the flooring as agreed. She was also dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered and advised that the issues had affected her mental health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has said she considers that the issues affecting her property have impacted her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments.  However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to decide on whether there was a direct link between the repair issues and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.
  2. In her correspondence, the resident has also raised concerns regarding the landlord’s handling of her reports of pests within the property. As this is a separate issue to the complaint raised with the Service, this is not something that the Ombudsman can adjudicate on at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to the issues raised. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint. This is in accordance with paragraph 39a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states, ‘The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to 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’.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s floorboards and the level of compensation offered.

  1. As part of this investigation the landlord was asked to provide evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. Only limited information was received, which did not include significant items such as the repair records regarding the flooring or correspondence from the resident regarding her concerns. In this particular case the investigation has been able to reach a determination based on key information within other documents provided. However, the omissions indicate poor record keeping in that it was not able to provide the relevant information and did not respond to the Ombudsman’s requests when asked. As such, an order will be made relating to this.
  2. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairs needed to the structure of the property, which includes floorboards and stairs. The resident is responsible for the decoration of the property, including floor coverings and underlay. The landlord’s website confirms that emergency repairs should be attended to within 24 hours. Non-urgent repairs should be completed within 20 working days. Where there is likely to be any delay to these timescales, the landlord would be expected to contact the resident, explain the reason for the delay and provide a new expected timescale.
  3. The resident has advised that she first reported issues with her floorboards squeaking in January 2020, soon after accepting the tenancy. The landlord has not provided records detailing the communication from the resident from this time and it is unclear as to whether this was the case as there is a lack of evidence to suggest that the resident actively pursued her concerns until September 2020.
  4. In this case, the landlord has not disputed that there were significant delays in arranging appointments to rectify the resident’s squeaking floorboards and miscommunication in its handling of the matter. It offered £175 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the service the resident had received, the delay in rectifying the issues and the missed appointments. The resident has also advised that a contractor had turned up without the correct tools on one occasion and that a decorator had been sent instead of a plumber on another. The landlord does not appear to have disputed this based on its complaint responses.
  5. The resident has explained that she was initially told that the floorboards would be replaced rather than repaired. Whilst we do not doubt the resident’s comments, this Service cannot establish any evidence to support this from the information provided. In conducting its investigations, the Ombudsman relies on contemporaneous documentary evidence to ascertain what events took place and reach conclusions on whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. In this instance, there is no written record of the landlord ever recommending that the floorboards be replaced at an earlier stage; nor has the resident provided any documentation to support this proposal. A landlord would be entitled to complete repairs rather than a replacement as long as the floorboards were not beyond economical repair. In this case, a contractor had noted in June 2021 that the boards were safe, although it is unclear as to whether the resident was informed of this. The landlord would be entitled to rely on the opinion of its qualified staff and contractors who determined that the floorboards were not in need of a full replacement.
  6. The resident has raised concern that the work to remove, re-bed and re-instate the floorboards on her stairs was not completed on 20 August 2021 as expected. It is noted that two repairs supervisors attended the property on the day and pointed out areas which needed repairing to the contractor, however, the resident has reported that the supervisors left and that the contractor had not completed the works. Given the dispute regarding the works, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have carried out a post-inspection in order to check the work. It is noted that the surveyor had advised that a post-inspection was required following the appointment on 20 August 2021 but there is no evidence to suggest that this was carried out. The landlord would not be expected to complete a post-inspection of every repair, however, in view of the dispute regarding whether the works were completed as expected, and on the recommendation of the surveyor, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have re-attended and inspected the works to ease the residents’ concerns, and recommend further works if it was found that the previous works were not adequate.
  7. It was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that she would need to fit adequate underlay and flooring in order to prevent the squeaking floorboards as this would be her responsibility in line with the tenancy agreement. The landlord also took reasonable steps to manage the resident’s expectations by explaining that some squeaking could not be prevented as a result of changes in season and that the underlay currently in place below the resident’s laminate flooring was not adequate in reducing any noise. Whilst the landlord took steps to address the resident’s concerns regarding the squeaking floorboards, it has not fully addressed certain aspects of the resident’s complaint and her concern about the safety of the floorboards. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have clearly addressed the resident’s concern regarding the lack of timber below the floorboards and her concerns that her children could not sleep in the bedrooms as the floor was unsafe. The landlord has not explained its position regarding the safety of the floorboards which is likely to be unsettling for the resident who is concerned about the structural integrity of the flooring, however it must also be noted that the surveyor clearly noted that the floorboards were safe.
  8. Overall, given that the landlord failed to inspect the work as advised, the resident’s assertions that the work remained incomplete, and the outstanding queries raised on the structural integrity of the flooring, the landlord’s offer of £175 compensation is not considered proportionate in view of the service failures identified and the impact on the resident. The landlord should pay the resident an additional £75 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s poor communication and record keeping, bringing the total to £250. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which states that amounts in this range are proportionate where there has been considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the resident. This includes a resident repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that resident or failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs.
  9. The landlord should also carry out a post-inspection of the floorboards on the resident’s stairs and in the bedrooms to ensure that there are no health and safety risks associated with the timber below the flooring. If the landlord concludes that the flooring does not pose a health and safety risk, the resident will need to fit flooring with sufficient underlay as advised in an attempt to resolve the squeaking as recommended by the landlord previously. If she experiences further issues following this, the landlord should complete a further inspection to identify if any further works are required. It may be that no further steps can be taken to resolve the squeaking floorboards; some level of noise would not be considered unreasonable and if the flooring is not considered to be a health and safety issue, this would be acceptable.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the resident’s floorboards and the level of compensation offered.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders that the following actions take place within four weeks:
    1. The landlord is to pay the resident £250 (inclusive of the £175 offered in its final response) in recognition of the inconvenience caused as a result of the delays and poor communication when dealing with the complaint.
    2. The landlord is to complete a post-inspection of the floorboards on the resident’s stairs and in the bedrooms to ensure that there are no health and safety risks associated with the timber below the flooring. The landlord should then write to the resident to confirm its findings and explain its position in relation to any further work required.
    3. The landlord is to take steps to improve its record keeping ensuring that all contact from a resident (and any representatives) as well as information regarding repairs are recorded and retained so that they can be recalled, when necessary, such as to this Service upon request, in response to a complaint.