Hyde Housing Association Limited (202205351)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205351

Hyde Housing Association Limited

30 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.

Our approach

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of several repair issues.
The landlord’s complaint handling has also been considered.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, living in a house.
On 22 March 2021, the resident raised concerns to the landlord about the external decoration of the property. She then chased repairs recommended by the surveyor to the extractor fan, pathway, external brickwork, and kitchen walls on 12 May 2021.
The resident raised a complaint on 27 May 2021 regarding outstanding repair works. She said there was a lip on the path that was a trip hazard, damp walls, snails and slugs coming through the back door, the back door did not lock, the cupboard under the sink was collapsing, the doors in the bathroom did not meet, an old radiator had been left in the garden, the bathroom extractor fan did not work, there was asbestos in the shed and it was falling apart, the outside brick wall was falling down, the gate was broken, painting to the exterior of the property was outstanding, and the pipework in the bathroom was collapsing.
The Service has not received a copy of the landlord’s stage 1 response, despite several requests. On 29 September 2021, the resident said she was unhappy with the complaint resolution as the landlord had not upheld its promises.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 18 November 2021 as she had not received a response, and the repairs had not been completed. She said contractors attended without prior notice and failed to attend scheduled appointments. She had to hire an independent contractor to repair the leak.
The landlord called the resident to discuss the complaint on 30 November 2021. She said repairs remained outstanding to the pathway, shed roof, guttering, external painting, bathroom pipework, and snails entering the kitchen. She was also dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of repairs to the damp, back door, cupboard under the sink, radiator, extractor fan, front wall, sink, and electrical test.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response on 7 February 2022, it said:
1. The outstanding repairs to the pathway, damp in the kitchen, back door, guttering/roof, garden shed, and stairs would be completed on 15 February 2022 and 16 February 2022.
2. The surveyor would monitor the repairs to completion, and it provided a direct contact detail.
3. It apologised for the delays in completing repairs to the cupboard under the sink and extractor fan and removing the radiator.
4. It acknowledged that the resident was frustrated the contractors attended to investigate the stairs when photos had already been taken. It said it was sometimes required to ensure it has the correct materials and equipment.
5. It did not own the front wall, but it was in solid condition.
6. The contractor was not responsible for external painting, so it passed the matter to the property manager to investigate.
7. It attended to repair the pipework in the bathroom on 27 January 2022, but the contractor said the resident did not allow access, as the work was not required.
8. It had requested an electrical test so it could provide her with a certificate.
9. It apologised for the delays and her poor experience. It acknowledged it had contributed to the delays and offered £300 compensation.
10. It received an increase of enquires during COVID-19, which impacted its ability to respond to complaints quickly.
In the resident’s complaint to the Service, she said she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the repairs and its communication. She said in March 2022 the staircase collapsed while her son was on it. She also said the landlord had not repaired the crumbling plaster and the repairs to the front path were ongoing for over 3 years.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In her complaint to the Service, the resident has raised concerns relating to damaged plaster in the interior of the property and requested compensation for the carpet damaged due to the stair repairs. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint to the landlord. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of the Service. The resident should therefore raise a new complaint with the landlord, if she considers the issues to remain outstanding. The resident may be able to refer the new complaint to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied once she has received the landlord’s final response to her complaint.
It is also recognised that the resident told the Service that repair issues with the stairs and pathway had been ongoing for 3 years. In line with paragraph 42 (c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that “were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising”. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred. The investigation will therefore focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repair reports 6 months prior to the complaint onwards.

The landlord’s handling of various repair issues

The tenancy handbook states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining and repairing the structure and exterior of the building. Its responsive repairs procedure outlines specific repairs that fall within its remit of responsibility including electricals, external doors, external redecoration, gutters, external means of access/ paths, the roof, and internal walls. The landlord’s responsive repairs procedure states that emergency repairs will be made safe within 24 hours, anytime repairs will be completed within 20 working days, and major repairs will be completed as per stock investment procedures.
In this case, the landlord has accepted responsibility for the repairs and acknowledged in its stage 2 response that there had been delays and poor service. As a result, it offered £300 compensation. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
It is unclear from the records provided exactly when the resident initially reported her repair concerns or when some of the repairs were completed. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. In this case, due to the lack of records, the Service is unable to determine a clear timeframe of the repairs, so it is difficult to assess the landlord’s handling of the issues.
The resident raised concerns about the external decoration, including window seals and doors, on 22 March 2021. She then chased repairs recommended by the surveyor to the extractor fan, pathway, external brickwork, and kitchen walls on 12 May 2021. The resident subsequently raised a complaint on 27 May 2021, in which she chased several outstanding repairs to the damp walls, back door, cupboard under the sink, bathroom doors, bathroom extractor fan, shed, outside wall, gate, exterior painting, bathroom pipework, and removal of a radiator from the garden. It is of concern that there is no evidence to confirm when she initially reported the repair issues, or when the surveyor attended. The landlord should have clear records of when repair issues are raised, appointments, and surveyor reports.
Regardless of when the repair issues were initially raised, it is evident that the landlord failed to adhere to its repair response timeframes. In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for the delays in repairing the cupboard under the sink, removing the radiator, and replacing the extractor fan. The repair records show the extractor fan was replaced on 18 August 2021. The resident confirmed to the landlord on 30 November 2021 that the radiator had been removed and the cupboard under the sink was repaired. However, the exact date the works were completed is unclear. Nonetheless, it is evident that the landlord exceeded its repair timeframe by several months, which was inappropriate. The resident also had to chase the repairs, causing her additional time and effort.
The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns regarding the bathroom doors or outside gate in its stage 2 response. The issues may have been resolved at stage 1, but the Service has not seen a copy of the response to confirm this. The repair records show that the gate was replaced on 26 October 2021, so again the landlord exceeded its repair timeframe by several months. The contractor noted that they made a new gate, due to supply issues. It is recognised that supply issues can cause delays in completing repairs that are outside of the landlord’s control. However, the landlord should have informed the resident of the reasons for the delay and managed her expectations regarding the expected timeframe, and there is no evidence it did. No repair records have been provided relating to the bathroom door, so it is unclear whether it has been resolved and the landlord has failed to evidence that it has fulfilled its repair obligations.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord stated repairs to the pathway, damp in the kitchen, back door, guttering/ roof, garden shed, and stairs would be completed on 15 February 2022 and 16 February 2022. It also said it had referred the external painting to the property manager to investigate. The resident confirmed the repairs to the path were completed on 21 July 2022. On 1 September 2022, the contractor advised the landlord the guttering repairs would be completed on 13 September 2022. There is no evidence to confirm whether the landlord resolved the damp issues in the kitchen, the back door, or the external painting. The landlord therefore failed to adhere to the complaint resolution and there is no evidence that it managed the resident’s expectations regarding reasons the repairs could not be completed within the designated timeframe.
The repair records show a work order was raised to replace the fascia to the shed roof and the shed door on 1 October 2021 and the contractor then rejected a job to remove the asbestos from the shed roof on 12 January 2022. On 2 August 2023, the resident reported the shed roof was broken and she was concerned about asbestos. The landlord has not provided evidence to confirm the repairs have been completed. This is of particular concern due to the reports of asbestos, which could present a health and safety risk. The landlord should therefore arrange any necessary repairs.
In her complaint to the Service, the resident raised concerns regarding the landlord’s handling of the stair repairs, particularly that her son fell through them. The landlord’s records show that on 9 December 2021 the contractor raised a work order to fit 4 treads and risers to the bottom of the staircase. The landlord then recognised in an internal email on 13 January 2022 that the works were outstanding. While it was not necessarily an excessive delay, the landlord should have ensured the necessary appointments were promptly arranged.
On 25 January 2022 the contractor requested access to take photos of the stairs. It is recognised that the resident was dissatisfied with the request as she thought the landlord had full details of the repair issue. The landlord responded reasonably as it recognised her frustration that contractors had previously attended but said it was important to assess the repair to ensure it had the correct materials and equipment. It was reasonable for the landlord to do this.
A contractor attended on 1 February 2022 to secure the loose section of the staircase but noted that the resident refused repairs as she wanted it to be replaced. Social landlords have limited budgets, so it was reasonable for it to attempt to repair the stairs rather than replace them in the first instance. Furthermore, it was acting in line with the advice of its appropriately qualified contractor that said repairs would be a satisfactory solution.
The resident called the landlord on 14 February 2022 to make the stairs safe, as she said a contractor had attended on 11 February and condemned the stairs and her son had since fell through them. Although the Service has specifically requested information relating to the stairs being condemned, the landlord has not provided any evidence relating to the matter. It is unclear why the stairs were not immediately made safe upon being condemned, or whether the stairs were necessary for the resident’s use of the property. Due to the lack of records, the Service is unable to determine whether the landlord could feasibly have known whether the stairs presented an imminent health and safety issues. Regardless, the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it acted appropriately.
A contractor made the stairs safe on 14 February 2022 and follow-on works were raised. The contractor told the landlord on 21 February 2022 that the stairs had been repaired and they required redecorating. The landlord therefore exceeded its routine repair response timeframe by 29 working days. However, no explanation has been provided to why the repairs were not handled as an emergency when the stairs were condemned.
The resident reported that the stairs were rotten in August 2022. The repair records show works were completed to repair the cracked treads in January 2023. It is unclear whether the repairs are a continuation of the issues addressed within the complaint or are new repair issues, so the Service cannot determine whether the repairs should have been identified and completed at an earlier date. It is also unclear whether the repairs have been completed in full, so the landlord should assess whether any further repairs are required.
It is acknowledged that in some instances there are reasons landlords are unable to meet repair timeframes. In its stage 2 response, it said that there were several occasions in which the resident did not allow access for the repairs. However, there is limited evidence to confirm this. The landlord should have evidence of specific appointment dates and contractor’s notes to confirm it took reasonable steps to arrange and attend appointments. It has therefore failed to demonstrate it took reasonable steps to ensure the repairs were completed within a reasonable timeframe.
On 23 May 2021, the landlord internally stated the resident’s “address has been reverted to ASB, all works have been closed/placed on hold until further notice”. From the evidence provided, it appears that the landlord said it would not complete repair works to the resident’s property, due to her alleged behaviour towards the landlord’s staff member. The landlord has not provided any evidence to confirm any reports of ASB or that it investigated the matter prior to restricting her access to repairs. There is also no evidence that the landlord informed the resident or considered alternative solutions to ensure it fulfilled its repair obligations, such as 2 contractors attending. In her complaint to the Service, the resident refuted any swearing or aggression. While the landlord did subsequently complete repairs, its handling of the matter appears to be unreasonable.
The landlord did not provide any other reasons for the delays in its response, despite acknowledging it contributed towards the delays. The resident reported missed appointments on several occasions, but the landlord did not address this. In line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles the landlord should be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. As it has not addressed the reasons for the delays in completing the repairs, it has not demonstrated it has learned from the outcome to prevent a recurrence of the issues. The landlord should therefore review its handling of the repairs, identify reasons for its failures to adhere to its repair policy, and consider how it can improve its service.
Overall, there were significant delays in the landlord’s handling of the vast number of the reported repairs. Although not all the repair issues would necessarily significantly impact the resident’s use of the property, it is clear the delays caused distress and inconvenience to her. This is particularly evident in relation to the stairs, pathway, and shed, all of which the resident raised health and safety concerns with. She also experienced significant time and trouble pursuing the repairs.
The landlord offered £300 compensation. In line with the Service’s remedies guidance, awards of £100-£600 are appropriate in cases where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident. As there were significant delays in completing the repairs, the compensation offered was not proportionate. The landlord also failed to address the detriment to the resident or that she had an unreasonable level of involvement to progress the repairs. In view of this, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident an additional £400.

Complaint handling

In line with the landlord’s complaint handling policy, it should respond to both stages of the complaint within 20 working days. The resident initially raised a complaint on 27 May 2021. The Service has not been provided with a copy of the landlord’s response, despite several requests. The complaint handling code states that “A full record must be kept of the complaint, any review and the outcomes at each stage.” It is therefore inappropriate that the landlord was unable to provide a copy of the stage 1 response. It is also unclear whether the landlord acted in accordance with its response timeframes or appropriately addressed all aspects of the complaint.
On 29 September 2021, the resident said she was unhappy that the complaint resolutions had not been upheld. The landlord internally noted on 8 October 2021 that the complaint was not being handled at stage 2, but there is no evidence that it provided reasons for its decision to the resident. The resident subsequently asked for the complaint to be escalated on 18 November 2021. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 7 February 2022, which significantly exceeded its response timeframe. The landlord’s failure to escalate and respond within the appropriate timeframes caused a delay in the complaint exhausting the complaint process and the resident’s referral rights to the Service.
It was reasonable that the landlord explained the reasons for the delays in issuing its stage 2 response. It said an increase of enquires during COVID-19 impacted its ability to respond to complaints quickly. However, it did not take any steps to redress the failing, so it remains unresolved. It is evident that the failure caused the resident additional time and trouble pursuing both the complaint and the substantive issues. In line with the Service’s remedies guidance, compensation of £100-£600 is appropriate in cases where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings or attempt to put things right. The landlord is therefore ordered to pay the resident £250 in light of the failings identified.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the way the landlord handled the resident’s reports of several repair issues.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the way the landlord handled the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

In addition to the £300 offered in its final response, the landlord should pay the resident a further £400, in view of the failings identified in its handling of the repairs.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £250 for its complaint handling failures.
The landlord should establish whether further works are required to resolve any outstanding repair issues. It should confirm in writing to the resident and the Service what works will be carried out and the target date for these to be completed.
The landlord should carry out a case review of its handling of the resident’s reports of repair issues, to identify any reasons for the failures found in this report. It should also consider how it can improve its service to prevent a recurrence of the issues. It should share its written findings with the resident and the Service.
The landlord is required to comply with the above orders, and to provide this Service with compliance of the orders, within four weeks of receiving this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its record handling practices, to ensure it retains clear records, including repairs and complaint information.
The landlord should review its complaint handling practices, to ensure that it recognises and responds to complaints within the relevant timeframes.