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

Hyde Housing Association Limited (202207146)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207146

Hyde Housing Association Limited

3 November 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:
    1. Handling of a repair to the resident’s window lock.
    2. Handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a Housing Association. The property is a two-bedroom house, and the resident has lived there since 1998.
  2. On 6 September 2021 the resident reported to his landlord that a kitchen window lock was not working. He followed this up with the landlord on 5 October 2021 and was informed that it would chase the repair with its contractor.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 18 October 2021 regarding the delay to the repair and the landlord’s lack of response, advising he had been told it would contact him within two working days. On 22 October the resident emailed the landlord’s CEO about the delay but received no response.
  4. On 3 November 2021 the landlord’s contractor failed to attend an agreed appointment. The resident informed the landlord of this and the ongoing repair delay, via its social media page. The landlord replied, also via social media, that it had passed the information to its “teams”. In its later Stage One complaint response, the landlord said it raised an informal complaint on 11 November 2021.
  5. On 18 November 2021 the landlord’s contractor inspected the window but informed the resident that as the key had broken off in the lock the repair was his responsibility and would be rechargeable. The resident explained that the key had broken in the lock years before but as the window had worked up until six months ago, he did not feel he was responsible for the cost of the repair. The resident also emailed the contractor’s CEO that day. It is not clear if this was before or after the inspection was carried out. The contractor ultimately did complete the repair on 26 November 2021, at no cost to the resident. The resident contacted the landlord via its social media page to advise he was still awaiting a written apology. The landlord replied and advised it would ask its complaints team to send one, but it subsequently did not do so.
  6. On 4 January 2022 the resident raised a formal complaint about the landlord’s delay in actioning the repair and asked for a letter from the landlord addressing the reasons why it had “neglected its statutory duty of care” to him. He additionally asked for a second letter from the landlord’s CEO confirming how it would compensate him for the “hardship caused” and prevent this happening again. He also asked for a formal apology to be published on its website and social media page for one month. He requested the landlord contact him by post.
  7. The resident emailed the landlord for an update on 28 January 2022. It apologised for the delay and advised its complaint responses were running five to six weeks behind schedule. On 9 March 2022, the resident contacted the landlord again to ask for an update. The landlord called the resident for more information about the complaint, and he explained he had requested a response in writing and was unhappy it had not read through the complaint details, which included his contact preferences, before calling him.
  8. In its Stage One response, sent on 18 March 2022, the landlord acknowledged it (and its contractor) had failed to contact the resident between him reporting the repair on 6 September 2021 and it inspecting the window on 18 November 2021. It said the contractor had raised an order on 27 October 2021 but then cancelled it as it said the resident was responsible for the repair (as the key had broken inside the lock). However, it said the contractor had referred the repair back to it to authorise and it had agreed to take responsibility for the repair as a goodwill gesture. It said its complaint response was an official apology and that it could not offer anything more in the form of a written response. It apologised for the delay in issuing its response, not raising a complaint in November 2021 and for its failure to communicate. It awarded compensation of £150 for these failings. It said the complaint had been reported to the complaints manager as the complaint handler had not received full details of the complaint and apologised that this had resulted in having to call the resident. It said its contractor had been reminded of the importance of communicating with residents during repairs.
  9. The resident escalated his complaint on 29 March 2022 as he was not happy with the landlord’s response. He said there were discrepancies in the details of the complaint such as the dates given, and the description of the repair. He also did not believe he was responsible for the repair and had not caused any damage. He asked that senior management investigate the complaint. He said he had also contacted a local councillor about the issue, who had discussed it with the mayor. In its Stage Two complaint response on 5 July 2022, the landlord apologised for its delay in responding but clarified it would not be changing its decision as the Stage One complaint response had addressed all the points the resident had made and there was nothing new to consider.
  10. The resident contacted this Service on 7 July 2022 as he was unhappy with how the landlord had dealt with his complaint, as well as how they had dealt with his repair report. He felt that the compensation was not proportionate and wanted the landlord to consider upgrading his bathroom instead.

Assessment and findings

Handling of a repair to the resident’s window lock.

  1. It is noted that the resident has made reference to the problem with the window lock occurring months before the September 2021 repair report. However, as neither the resident nor the landlord have provided this Service with evidence of the repair being reported at an earlier date, this assessment will cover the period from 6 September 2021 onwards. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will ensure that repair requests are investigated and works carried out according to its stated timescales. Its website states that it will attend urgent repairs within four hours and non-urgent repairs within 20 working days. Therefore, when the resident reported the repair on 6 September 2021 the landlord should have attended within 20 working days and communicated any delays beyond that timeframe with the resident. However, as the landlord failed to do either, the resident had to chase the repair himself on the 5 October 2021 and again on 18 October 2021, at which point he asked to raise a complaint about the delay and the landlord said it would contact him.
  2. When the resident emailed the landlord’s CEO on 22 October 2021, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have responded to that email, even if the response was issued by another employee, on behalf of the CEO. However, the landlord failed to respond at all. In its later Stage One complaint response the landlord advised its contractor had raised a repair order on 27 October 2021 but later cancelled it as they decided the resident was responsible for the repair, as the key breaking in the lock affected the window handle rather than the window itself. Irrespective of whether this decision about responsibility was correct or not, it would have been appropriate for either the landlord or its contractor to have informed the resident that the repair order had been cancelled and allowed him the opportunity to put forward the reasons why he believed he was not responsible for the repair. However, the landlord and its contractor failed to do so.
  3. As the resident was unaware the repair order had been cancelled, he was expecting the contractor to attend to inspect the window on 3 November 2021 and contacted the landlord via social media when the appointment did not take place. This Service has not seen details of this appointment, but it is noted the landlord has not disputed it was booked and the contractor did not attend. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have chased up the repair at this point or for it to have explained to the resident it had decided that it was his responsibility. However, the landlord failed to do so. Although the landlord raised an informal complaint on 11 November 2021, no action was taken to either complete the repair or to communicate with the resident who was responsible for the repair, until 18 November 2021, when the resident emailed the contractor’s CEO. After initially advising the repair was the resident’s responsibility, the contractor completed the repair on 26 November 2021. It was not appropriate that the repair was only completed after the resident took the time and trouble to contact the contractor himself.
  4. The landlord ultimately agreed to pay for the repair as a gesture of goodwill. However, the resident maintains he was not responsible for the repair. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it provides a service in which residents can pay in advance for repairs that are their responsibility, and that it will also recover the cost of repairs that have been undertaken which are the resident’s responsibility. Its website provides more detail on repairs responsibilities and although it states the landlord is responsible for maintaining window frames “outside the property” it also states residents are responsible for repairing and replacing “keys and locks because of any damage caused by [residents and their family or visitors].
  5. However, this does not clearly specify if window locks are included in this category and the resident has argued both that the window functioned successfully for many years after the key broke off in the lock and that the breakage did not occur as a result of “damage” he had caused. The landlord’s website advises residents to refer to their tenancy agreement for further clarification of repairs responsibilities. However, the tenancy agreement seen by this Service offers no further clarification.
  6. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the repair information available regarding who should be responsible for the repair is ambiguous and would likely have caused the resident confusion. While the landlord advises residents are responsible for replacing “keys and locks”, it does not make clear whether this also includes windows, rather than doors, or how it ascertains whether repairs would be caused as a result of “damage” or natural wear and tear. It was not necessarily unreasonable of the landlord to apply its policy in this way, but this Service has not seen any evidence regarding how it, or its contractor, determined that the key was broken as a result of “damage” caused by the resident. Additionally, after its contractor cancelled the repair order, the landlord should have advised the resident of its position sooner. Additionally, as the resident raised the issue in his subsequent complaint, the landlord should have provided a response regarding how it had determined the repair was necessary as a result of “damage”, which remained its ultimate position having agreed to pay for the repair as a goodwill gesture, rather than agreeing it was its responsibility.
  7. In its Stage One complaint response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the repair could have been handled better and apologised for the failings it had identified. It also offered compensation of £150 for the “distress and inconvenience for the lack of communication” and the time taken to report the issue. However, as the landlord advised its award also took into account its delayed Stage One response, it is not clear how much of the award related to the repair failings. Assuming that at least £50 of the award related to the landlord’s complaint handling, given the failings in its handling of the repair and the inconvenience caused by the resident, despite its decision to pay for the repair as a goodwill gesture and its offer of an apology, its award of compensation should have been higher. An Order has therefore been made at the end of this report for it to pay an increased amount of compensation to the resident.
  8. It is noted the resident has requested the landlord consider upgrading his bathroom in lieu of compensation. However, as such works are normally funded by the landlord’s planned maintenance budget, this Service considers a compensation payment to be a more appropriate and reasonable form of redress. It is also noted the resident has requested a letter of apology from the landlord’s CEO and an apology to be made on its social media sites, which is not something the Ombudsman would be able to Order. However, while the resident’s strength of feeling regarding the issue is acknowledged, the landlord’s apologies within its complaint responses are considered reasonable in the circumstances.

Complaint handling.

  1. The landlord has a two-stage formal complaint process. Its policy also states that residents can choose an informal complaint response rather than a formal complaint investigation for issues such as completing an outstanding repair, where a resolution will be provided within five working days. If an informal complaint is unsuccessful, either because deadlines are missed or the customer is dissatisfied, the complaint will be escalated to a formal Stage One investigation. The landlord states it aims to respond to Stage One complaints within ten working days but it will advise the resident if it needs more time (which will be no more than a further ten working days) and provide a new date for its response. If they remain unhappy, residents can request the complaint be escalated and “in most cases” the landlord will review the original decision, and any additional information provided, at Stage Two. The landlord’s policy states it aims to provide a review response within 20 working days but this may take up to a further ten working days, in which case it will inform the resident and provide a new date.
  2. When the resident requested a complaint be raised on 18 October 2021 (and subsequently emailed the landlord’s CEO on 22 October 2021), the landlord should have either raised a formal complaint and provided a response within ten working days or dealt with it as an informal complaint and sought to resolve the matter within five working days, as per its complaints policy. It is not clear if the landlord contacted the resident following his complaint on 18 October 2021, but it is apparent that no formal complaint was raised. If the landlord had treated the resident’s contact as an informal complaint, in accordance with its policy it should have then escalated it to a formal Stage One complaint on 3 November 2021 when the resident had made it clear he was unhappy with the landlord’s response. That it did not do was not appropriate and meant that the landlord did not act in accordance with its complaints policy.
  3. It is noted that, in its Stage One complaint response, the landlord said it raised an informal complaint on 11 November 2021 in order to ask its contractor to action the repair. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident to update him on the progress of the complaint after this. However, the landlord has acknowledged it could find no record of any communication in respect of this informal complaint. This was not appropriate and raises concerns over the landlord’s record keeping and complaint management.
  4. Once the resident informed the landlord via social media, on 26 November 2021, that he was still expecting a letter of apology, the landlord responded appropriately by agreeing to contact the complaints team to request a letter be sent. This was another missed opportunity for the landlord to raise a formal complaint and meant it did not act in line with its complaints procedures or treat the resident fairly. It also unfairly raised the resident’s expectations, advising it would write to him with an apology, when it did not do so. In its Stage One complaint response, the landlord explained it had not sent the resident a written response because it had treated his contact as an informal complaint. However, it would have been appropriate to have informed the resident of this at the time.
  5. When the resident submitted a further complaint by email on 4 January 2022, the landlord did log this as a formal complaint. After doing so it acted reasonably by advising its response would be delayed as it was dealing with a backlog of complaints at that time. While this was appropriate, and sought to manage the resident’s expectations, it did not provide a new date for its response, as per its complaints policy. This caused the resident to contact it again on 28 January 2022 seeking an update. At this point the landlord responded appropriately by apologising for the delay and explaining that it was working through a backlog of complaints and was currently 5-6 weeks behind, although giving an expected response date would have been helpful.
  6. When the resident rang for an update on 9 March 2022, the landlord contacted him to discuss the complaint further. While this was not in itself an unreasonable action for the landlord to take, it failed to take into account his contact preferences, in which he had requested contact by post. It would also have been helpful for the landlord to have had all the details of the complaint to hand before contacting the resident. However, the landlord took appropriate steps to apologise for this in its Stage One complaint response, and explained this had happened because, through no fault of the resident’s, the complaint did not have the necessary details attached. Although this raises concerns over the landlord’s record keeping, it was appropriate that it advised it had reported this to the complaint manager to ensure it did not happen again. This was a reasonable response which showed it aimed to reassure the resident that it would learn from the case. It also took appropriate steps to address the other points the resident had made in his complaint.
  7. Once the resident escalated his complaint on 29 March 2022, in line with its complaint policy, the landlord should have provided a response within 20 working days or, if it was likely to have needed extra time, it should have provided the resident with a new target date. However, the landlord failed to do either and provided its Stage Two complaint response on 5 July 2022, 66 working days after the resident’s escalation request. This was not appropriate and, although it is acknowledged that the landlord had advised it was experiencing a backlog, this still amounted to an unreasonable delay.
  8. Regarding the resident’s request to escalate his complaint, the landlord’s complaints policy states that a manager will “review the case to determine if it warrants a review at Stage 2 of our process” when a request is received. In accordance with its policy, it was entitled to decide not to escalate the resident’s complaint. While the resident advised there were inaccuracies in the landlord’s Stage One response, and the landlord’s records regarding the escalation request note he considered it did “not check all the details (of the case)”, this Service has not seen details of the specific aspects of the response the resident queried or of any new information that had been provided.
  9. In the absence of any evidence regarding what new information was provided, or which aspects of the complaint response the resident was dissatisfied with, the landlord’s decision to decline the escalation request cannot be said to be unreasonable. Its Stage One response had also advised its CEO would not provide a personal apology so it was reasonable it reiterated its position rather than providing a further full response, given that it would not be able to provide the resident’s desired outcomes.
  10. However, given the delay in issuing its Stage Two response, the landlord should have considered whether any further redress was appropriate, given it had already offered compensation at Stage One following a shorter response delay. This was not appropriate and meant the landlord missed an opportunity to “put things right”, in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
  11. The landlord missed more than one opportunity to appropriately log a formal complaint and there were delays in providing its Stage One and Two responses. Taking into consideration other failings including advising the resident it would provide a letter of apology but then not doing so and failing to provide clear timeframes for its responses, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the compensation awarded by the landlord in its Stage One response did not adequately reflect the failings in this case and the time, trouble and inconvenience the resident was caused. Accordingly, an Order has been made at the end of this report to pay the resident an increased amount of compensation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of a repair to the resident’s window lock.
    2. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £325 compensation, consisting of £175 for its repair failings and £150 for its poor handling of the complaint. For clarity, this award is in place of, rather than in addition to, the landlord’s previous offer of £150.
    2. Send a letter of apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report, along with details of any steps it has taken, or will be taking, to improve how it responds to repair requests and complaints.
  2. The landlord should provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this letter.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider reviewing its repairs policy to ensure it makes clear whether repairs to window locks and handles are the responsibility of the landlord or residents. It should also consider its procedures for how it communicates these decisions to residents and how it ascertains whether such repairs are caused by “damage” or wear and tear.