Hyde Housing Association Limited (202115290)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115290

Hyde Housing Association Limited

28 November 2023

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Responses to the resident’s concerns about the cost of running his electric shower.
2. Handling of repairs to the resident’s radiators, boiler, and toilet, and a bathroom leak.
3. Response to the resident’s service complaint about a repair operative.
4. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
In 2017 the landlord installed an electric shower in the resident’s home as part of a wide scale home improvement scheme.
The landlord’s repair records show that in March and April 2021 the resident started reporting a flush fault with his toilet, and problems with his radiators and boiler system. Around the same time the resident told the landlord the shower had caused a significant increase in his electricity bills over the last several years.
The landlord raised work jobs for each of these issues, asking that its contractors attend and resolve them. It arranged for an electrician to visit also, to check that the shower was installed correctly and investigate the resident’s high bills.
The landlord subsequently told the resident that the electrician’s report stated he had not been given permission to test the shower. It said that it could not take any further action until the shower was tested. The resident disputed the landlord’s account of the visit, saying that after he had explained his concerns about the high running costs, the electrician had said that if there were not faults he did not need to inspect the shower. The resident said he had a recording of the conversation.
In April 2021 the resident reported to the landlord several times that he was frustrated with the multiple visits he had had from contractors trying unsuccessfully to resolve the repairs he had reported.
On 4 May 2021, while asking for updates on his existing repair problems, the resident also told the landlord that he had reported damp patches and stains on his living room ceiling in 2020. He said operatives had not been able to find a cause at the time, but the patches were now spreading, and he asked the landlord to investigate as he was concerned there was a leak from the bathroom above. The landlord acknowledged the report, but said it was not aware of any previous reports about it. It said it would add it to an existing upcoming plumbing appointment to inspect for leaks.
On 8 May 2021 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord about the shower. He said the shower had caused a significant increase in his electricity bills over the last several years, and suggested a different type of system which would better utilise the oil boiler system his home used, and be much cheaper to run. He also complained about the electrician’s visit. He explained he was angry the operative had lied about the visit. He wanted the landlord to consider replacing the electric shower with the alternative type he had suggested, and compensate him for his costs.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 10 May 2021. It explained that due to high volumes of repairs there could be up to a six week delay responding.
The resident emailed the landlord on 4 June 2021 saying that the toilet flush problem had still not been resolved, despite multiple visits. He said that at the most recent visit a plumber had attended expecting to fix an overflowing cistern –which was not something the resident had ever reported. He said he wanted to raise a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of the matter.
In August 2021 the resident asked for an update about his complaint. The officer he had been dealing with about the repairs explained that “The complaints team directed this issue through to us and we have responded within the timeframe. We have sent out a qualified electrician and they…have found no faults with the shower, it is functioning as it should and was fitted correctly… [we] would be unable to change the way the shower is fitted to lower your electric bills.”
The resident raised a further complaint with the landlord on 30 August 2021. He referred to his May complaint which he said had not been formally responded to. He said he wanted a formal response so that he could take his complaint to the Ombudsman.
The landlord has provided a copy of its complaint response dated 14 September 2021. The response related to the resident’s May 2021 complaint, and it acknowledged and apologised for the significant delay. The landlord explained it had investigated the resident’s concerns about the repairs it had been making to his home (it did not specify which repairs), and agreed that it had not completed them as quickly as it should have. It apologised for its failing, and offered the resident £50 compensation for the inconvenience caused, and a further £50 for its delayed complaint response. It also explained what it was doing to improve its repairs and complaints services, and how the resident could escalate his complaint if he remained dissatisfied.
The resident did not receive the letter. Not knowing that a response had been sent, he emailed the landlord’s complaints team on 5 October 2021 asking for an update. He chased the landlord for an update again on 15 November, this time sending his email to senior managers. The landlord contacted him the next day to discuss his concerns. An internal email notes that as an initial complaint response had already been issued the landlord would treat the resident’s ongoing dissatisfaction as an escalation.
Following discussions with the landlord the resident sent details of his unresolved concerns on 13 December 2021. He explained in detail his experiences with the electric shower and the costs running it, as well as his suggestions for an alternative type, and his frustrating experiences with the landlord’s officers during the year when he had raised the matter with them. He also complained about the electrician’s inaccurate record of the visit, and the difficulties he had had getting the officer he was dealing with to log his complaint. Additionally, he complained about the range of repair issues he had reported to the landlord over the year, most of which he said involved multiple wasted visits to resolve (such as the wrong type of contractor attending, or not having the right parts). These issues included problems with: a ceiling stain which he suspected was from an unidentified leak in the bathroom above; an oil tank gauge; noisy radiators; and the toilet flush. He said the suspected leak was not yet resolved, and was dissatisfied with the levels of service he had received to resolve the other repairs.
The landlord sent its final complaint response on 4 January 2022. It explained what had been documented following the electrician’s visit, recognised that the visit had not been recorded properly, and apologised for the frustration caused to the resident. It also acknowledged that while most of the repair issues had been resolved, poor workmanship and delays had led to the need for multiple visits for each issue, which had caused him unnecessary inconvenience and dissatisfaction.
The landlord explained that any issues around the original installation of the electric shower in 2017 were too old for it to investigate now, and that it would only consider replacing it if it was faulty – which had been confirmed it was not. It explained why that type of shower had been installed, and acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the cost of using it. It said it was open to considering if the shower was consuming more electricity than it should, if the resident could provide evidence indicating that was happening. Nonetheless, as things stood at that point it was not willing to reimburse the resident for any increased costs. The landlord explained that investigation of the ceiling stain and suspected leak remained outstanding and said it had escalated its resolution to its contractors and surveyor. It apologised for the inconvenience caused by its poor handling of the wide range of repair issues, and offered the resident £400 compensation.
The resident remained dissatisfied and brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. He explained that while the repairs were now resolved he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s overall handling and sought improvements in how it managed repairs without the need for multiple visits. He also remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s position in regard to the electric shower. He sought reimbursement for his increased electricity costs, and compensation for lost income from the wasted repair visits.

Assessment and findings

Investigation scope

In his complaint to the landlord and to the Ombudsman, the resident explained that the number of appointments he had had for repairs had impacted on his income, and he asked the landlord for compensation in light of it. This investigation considers the specific issue of the necessity of the many repair appointments, and also considers if the landlord appropriately handled the issue and offered reasonable remedies. However, tenancy agreements state tenants are obliged to provide access for repairs, and a request for actual lost earnings would require assessment of income and liability and, ultimately, possibly a legal claim against the landlord. Because of that an actual calculation of lost income is outside the remit of this investigation.
A major aspect of the resident’s complaint is that the landlord should not have installed the current electric shower, in 2017, because there were alternative options which would have been more appropriate in his circumstances. He made his formal complaint about the matter in mid-2021. There are time limits affecting what the Ombudsman will and will not investigate, because with the passage of time the practicality of investigating historic issues, or fairly assessing the impact of any failings, makes reaching robust determinations less likely. Accordingly, this investigation centres on the landlord’s responses to the resident’s requests and queries about the shower in 2021 and 2022.
One of the repair issues the resident raised as a complaint with the landlord involved his concerns about a stain on his ceiling, which he believed may have been from an ongoing leak in his bathroom on the floor above. At the time this issue was still being investigated by the landlord, and no clear evidence of a leak, or cause for the stain had been identified. The landlord’s final complaint response in January 2022 set out the actions it intended to take to continue investigating the issue. Information from the landlord and the resident show that the issue continued unresolved for the rest of 2022 and into 2023. The resident eventually made a new formal complaint to the landlord about its handling of this issue (as well as other new problems), which the landlord dealt with through its complaints process. It provided its final response in August 2023, and the resident has asked the Ombudsman to investigate the matter. Accordingly, this investigation considers this particular repair issue up to the landlord’s final complaint response in early 2022. A separate investigation will consider the resident’s new complaint to the landlord about its handling of the matter after January 2022.

Responses to the resident’s concerns about the cost of running his electric shower

The specific terms and conditions of the resident’s tenancy have not been provided for this investigation. Nonetheless, in general, a tenancy will allow a tenant to ask a landlord for permission to make adaptations or improvements to their home. Such improvements are usually at the tenant’s expense, with a commitment to maintain any improvements themselves. If a tenancy then ends, a tenant is usually entitled to ask their landlord for compensation for any improvements they made. There is not usually any general obligation for a landlord to make improvements at its own expense. Nothing in the evidence provided for this investigation indicates that general situation is different in this specific case. Because of that, the landlord had no obligation to agree to the resident’s request that it install a different type of shower—given that there were no apparent faults with the existing one.
The landlord responded to the resident’s queries about the shower, ascertained that there were no faults, and offered to consider any evidence the resident could provide which might indicate higher than usual energy consumption for that type of shower. The resident explained to the landlord that he had not been able to obtain evidence of his energy usage before the shower was installed with which to compare the current usage. That is understandable, given when the shower was installed in 2017, but the offer showed that the landlord appreciated the resident’s situation and was open to the possibility of further investigation.
The resident’s grounds for wanting the change, as explained to the landlord, were wholly understandable, and he was well within his rights to ask. His frustration with his situation and with the landlord’s position is equally understandable. Nonetheless, the landlord’s responses explained its decision, which was in line with its obligations, and was therefore reasonable.
It may be that the resident will have an opportunity to suggest his preferences to the landlord if and when it does a cyclical refresh of his bathroom. It is not known when that may occur, and could be several years away. It may also be open to the resident to ask the landlord for permission to change the shower himself. A recommendation is made below in regard to the resident’s possible options.

Handling of repairs to the resident’s radiators, boiler, and toilet, and a bathroom leak.

The evidence seen for this investigation clearly shows the resident’s frustration through much of 2021 with the repeated visits needed to resolve problems with his radiators, oil boiler, and toilet flush, and suspected leak. In its final complaint response the landlord fully acknowledged and apologised for the poor handling which led to the multiple visits. It offered the resident £400 compensation in light of the inconvenience and frustration caused to him. These were proportionate and relevant remedies in the circumstances of failings which caused a significant level of inconvenience and disruption, they were broadly in line with both the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
However, the nature and scale of the failings indicated possible wider-ranging issues with the landlord’s contractor and repairs processes, and the only reference the landlord made to investigating and improving those processes was the landlord explaining it would take the failings up with the contractors to find out what happened, and prevent similar situations occurring again. There is no evidence of any further updates to the resident in regard to what the landlord found from its enquiries, and what it planned to do to improve its services. The version of the Code in place at the time of this complaint sets out an expectation that “Landlords should proactively use learning from complaints to revise policies and procedures, to train staff and contractors and to improve communication and record-keeping.” Nothing in the evidence provided for this investigation indicates the landlord meaningfully met this goal in this case, meaning that its remedies were not sufficient to fully resolve the resident’s complaint.

Response to the resident’s service complaint about a repair operative

The resident complained to the landlord that its electrician operative had incorrectly recorded a visit to the resident as “no-access”, and that the resident had refused entry. He explained the circumstances of the visit, and why he and the operative had concluded there was no need to inspect the shower.
In its complaint response the landlord acknowledged that the visit had been documented incorrectly, and apologised for the confusion and inconvenience caused to the resident.
The resident’s desire to correct the record was appropriate and relevant—especially given the number of repair visits he had experienced for the whole range of issues he had been reporting. Fortunately, there is no indication of any clear impact from the matter. The landlord acknowledged its failing, and apologised. In the circumstances, there is no indication of anything more it could reasonably do in regard to this specific incident.

Complaint Handling

The resident submitted his first complaint, centred on the shower issue, on 8 May 2021. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the complaint and explained why its response might take up to six weeks. It said it had logged the complaint at “stage one”, provided a reference number, and said the complaint would be passed to one of its resolution officers. Based on that information, the resident had every right to expect his complaint would be dealt with formally through the landlord’s complaints process.
There is no evidence of a formal complaint response within the time frame set by the landlord.
On 4 June 2021 the resident told the landlord he wanted to raise a formal complaint about its handling of the toilet repairs. There is no evidence of a response to that complaint.
In August 2021 the resident asked for an update from the landlord about his complaints. Rather than providing the formal response promised in its original acknowledgement, the officer whom the resident had already been dealing with on a regular basis about his repairs responded, telling the resident that the previous emails to the resident about the shower had constituted the complaint response. It appears, therefore, that the landlord had decided to treat the resident’s original complaint informally. Its complaint policy provides for it to do that in situations where a tenant wants the landlord to “put things right with a minimum of fuss when it is clear what has gone wrong.” Given that the issues the resident had raised in his complaint about the shower were wide ranging and covered a lengthy time period, with no clear resolution in sight, treating the matter informally cannot be said to have been appropriate or reasonable. This poor handling was made worse by the landlord not telling the resident how it was dealing with his complaint, and its informal response not explaining how the resident could escalate the matter if he remained dissatisfied.
The resident raised this issue in his escalated complaint, because in his view he was being prevented from making a formal complaint by the same officer he had been dealing with. The landlord did not address the point in its complaint response, leaving the issue unaddressed and unresolved. The impact of this poor handling was significant, because the resident was left in the dark about his complaint, and he was prevented from having his concerns considered by this Service.
The landlord issued a formal stage one complaint response in September 2021. It said it was responding to the resident’s original complaint from May. It made no reference to the issue apparently having been dealt with informally earlier. The resident has explained he never received the formal response. Even if he had received it, it was unlikely to have resolved his concerns. The letter is generic and does not mention the issues he had complained about at all. It appears to be a template. The landlord’s internal emails state that it also recognised that the formal “response at stage 1 was poor and failed to answer the points raised.” Despite identifying problems with its first formal response, there was no recognition or apology in the landlord’s final complaint response.
Having not received the landlord’s complaint response the resident chased for an update on 5 October 2021. There is no evidence of a response to him, which there should have been because it should have been clear to the landlord that the resident had not received its letter.
The resident chased for a complaint response again on 15 November 2021. This time he sent his email to senior executives. In his complaint to the Ombudsman the resident has said that he felt that it was only by doing that that his complaint was taken seriously. The landlord’s internal emails do show a flurry of activity in relation to the complaint once senior staff were involved. When the different reactions to the October and November requests for an update are compared, the resident’s interpretation of events is understandable. It goes without saying that a tenant should not need to contact senior staff to progress their complaints.
Overall, there were numerous shortcomings and failings by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaints in 2021. These failings led to delays resolving his concerns, inconvenience and frustration. The landlord did not acknowledge or address its poor handling, despite having the opportunity to do so.

Determination

In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its responses to the resident’s concerns about the cost of running his electric shower.
In line with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the resident’s heating system, toilet, and a bathroom leak.
In line with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its response to the resident’s service complaint about a repair operative.
In line with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

In light of the failings found in this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident:
1. £550 for its incomplete resolution of his complaint about the number of repair visits for the radiators, boiler, and toilet. This amount includes the £400 already offered by the landlord.
2. £250 for its poor complaint handling.
Payment must be made within four weeks of this report, and evidence provided to this Service.
In early 2023, the Ombudsman investigated a complaint brought by a different tenant of the landlord. That investigation also found failings in the landlord’s complaint handling at the same time as the events in this report. In response to that investigation the landlord explained in detail how it had improved its complaint processes and procedures over the subsequent years. Given the similarities in the poor complaint handling between both cases, the landlord is ordered to similarly write to the resident within six weeks of this report, explaining how it has improved since 2021, especially in regard to its confused informal handling, its poor stage one response, and its failure to provide complete remedies to the resident in its final complaint response.
As part of the above, the landlord should also provide the explanation missing from its final complaint response. This should set out how it now manages and maintains oversight over its operatives and contractors so as to avoid excessive numbers of wasted repair visits, and especially how it satisfies itself that its processes are working as intended in that regard.

Recommendation

In light of the resident’s very understandable concerns about the general running costs of his type of shower, the landlord may wish to consider explaining to him (and other tenants) how it assesses this specific type of issue when deciding fixtures and fittings in its property renewals, so as to ensure that running costs experienced by tenants are fair and reasonable. As part of this, the landlord should explain when the resident’s next bathroom renewal is scheduled, and what options, if any, he may have to request changes at the time of a renewal, or explain how the resident might be able to make a change himself a an improvement, provided for by his tenancy.