Hyde Housing Association Limited (202210077)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210077

Hyde Housing Association Limited

11 April 2024

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

The complaint is about the:
1. Landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the communication regarding dog fouling.
2. Landlord’s handling of the outstanding repairs to the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy which started on 24 August 2020. The resident is a housing association tenant.
The property is described as a maisonette which has underfloor heating.
The resident has a mental health condition.
On 24 June 2022, the landlord sent a letter to 4 buildings that it manages regarding dog fouling and the use of the communal areas. The letter explained to residents that their dogs should not roam off the lead and that the communal gardens should not be used by their pet as a toilet. Also, it considered that type of behaviour to be anti-social. It provided the contact details for residents to provide information to identify any neighbours carrying out that type of behaviour.
The resident complained on 16 August 2022 that the landlord had failed to respond to her complaints. Also, its lack of action had turned her life upside down and that her preferred outcome was for the landlord to take her seriously. The resident expressed that the landlord had breached her human rights and made her feel unsafe in the property.
The landlord responded the same day, requesting the resident provide more detail about her complaint and the outcome she wanted. The following day, the resident asked that the landlord call her to discuss the complaint.
The landlord contacted the resident on the same day. The resident outlined that she felt targeted by the landlord as she had not received the communication regarding dog fouling and it had not addressed the outstanding repairs to the property regarding the under-floor heating and the opening of the front and rear door damaging the reveal to the property.
The landlord sent its complaint responses on 8 September 2022 and 9 March 2023. The landlord stated that it had reviewed the correspondence that it had sent to residents regarding dog fouling. It confirmed that the resident should have received the correspondence it sent to the residents in her block and accepted that the correspondence did not meet its customer service standards. Also, it used the feedback from colleagues to learn from the complaint and acknowledged that the resident had found the letter upsetting and apologised for this.
With regard to the outstanding repairs, it acknowledged that an appointment for 14 October 2022 had been unsuccessful and that the resident had refused to have the repairs carried out. It stated that the external light had been repaired and it had arranged for the remainder of the repairs to be completed on 20 March 2023. It made a compensation award for £300 for its delay in acknowledging the complaint and completing the repairs, poor communication and distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.

After the complaint response was exhausted

A safeguarding referral was made to the local authority on 23 March 2023. The safeguarding liaison officer responded on 28 March 2023, informing the landlord that the resident had advised that she did not have any support needs. Also, the resident repeated that she did not receive the correspondence sent by the landlord regarding dog fouling. The resident was of view that the landlord had sent the letter about dog fouling after it received contact from other residents about her.
The landlord’s records show that it spoke with the resident on 6 April 2023 and that she expressed that she felt harassed by her neighbours and advised of the deterioration of her relationship with a particular neighbour. The resident maintained that she did not receive the correspondence sent by the landlord and that another resident had shown her the letter. On reading the letter, the resident stated that the correspondence implied that she was responsible for the dog fouling complained about. Furthermore, she believed that the landlord had given money to residents so that they could spy on her.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to this Service on 9 March 2023. The resident maintained that the landlord had not sent the correspondence regarding dog fouling to her and as a consequence she felt unsafe and isolated in the property. Also, the landlord did not contact her to discuss the complaint before it issued its response.

Assessment and findings

It is appreciated that the resident has been upset and distressed by the communication sent by the landlord regarding dog fouling and the delay in completing the outstanding repairs. The resident’s feelings are understood and it is not disputed with such situations can be stressful.

Landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the communication regarding dog fouling.

The landlord has a responsibility to its residents to help them maintain their tenancies and to take appropriate action in response to any reports of alleged anti-social behaviour that it receives. The tenancy agreement gives permission to the resident to keep pets with the consent of the landlord. It is noted that the resident’s complaint relates to a general letter sent to residents of 4 blocks regarding the management of their pets.
In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord acted reasonably once it became aware that the resident had not received its communication regarding the dog fouling. Its records show that it checked with its internal teams to establish who had commissioned the letter and the properties the correspondence had been sent to. The landlord also reviewed the content of the letter and recognised that the tone and language contained did not meet its standards as it could have been clearer.
In its complaint responses, the landlord explained to the resident that it had not intended to exclude her from receiving the correspondence regarding the dog fouling. From the evidence supplied to this Service, the property manager had requested that the letter be sent to 4 blocks it managed and the resident’s address was not excluded. It is likely that that the resident’s property was missed when the correspondence regarding the dog fouling was delivered.
As the resident was not reassured by the landlord’s explanations, it could have arranged for the correspondence regarding dog fouling to be re-sent to her. There is no evidence that it considered this course of action, which may have gone some way to assure her that the correspondence about dog fouling was not sent specifically about her. This was a shortcoming.
The resident informed the landlord that its failure to send her the correspondence about the dog fouling had affected her relationships with her neighbours. Without diminishing the resident’s experiences, there is no evidence that the correspondence sent by the landlord implied that the resident’s dogs were fouling in the communal area. The upset experienced by the resident is understandable. However, in this particular case, the landlord took appropriate actions to address the resident’s concerns.
In summary, the landlord has demonstrated that it responded reasonably to the resident’s concerns about the communication regarding dog fouling. It took the resident’s concerns seriously, investigated the reason for the letter, responded accordingly and confirmed that the correspondence should have been sent her. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns and sought to reassure her that it had not received complaints about her dogs. Had it done so, the landlord would have been expected to write to the resident specifically about such matters as set out in its anti-social behaviour policy.

Landlord’s handling of the outstanding repairs to the property.

The landlord’s repair policy sets out that it is responsible for responding to general repair requests and scheduling appointments with the resident. Its repair policy sets out the timescales in which those repairs will be carried out – 24 hours for emergency repairs and within 20 working days for routine repairs.
The resident maintained that she began reporting repairs shortly after moving into the property in August 2020. The landlord has accepted in its complaint response that its records do not provide the exact dates when the resident made her repair reports.
From the available evidence, the resident reported that the underfloor heating was not operating correctly in July 2022. Further reports about the heating system were made on 8 September 2022 and on 7 March 2023. The evidence does not show if these repairs were attended or the reason for the fault, if any.
Repairs required to the front and rear doors were reported in April 2022 and a defect to the pop-up bath plug in August 2022. The landlord’s repair policy states that routine repairs will be resolved within 20 working days. The landlord’s records do not evidence the actions it took in response to the reports, which is not appropriate as it has not demonstrated the actions it took to ensure the repairs were completed in a timely basis.
A further report was made regarding the defect to the pop-up bath plug on 9 December 2022. An operative attended but left before resolving the issue, stating this was due to the resident’s behaviour. Another operative attended on 3 January 2023 but the landlord’s records show that there was no access and a further appointment was arranged for 17 January 2023. The landlord’s records do not provide any further information regarding the operative’s attendance on those dates – this is unreasonable.
In its initial complaint response, the landlord agreed to carry out the outstanding repairs to kitchen doors, kitchen base unit, wash hand basin and grouting to the shower room on 14 October 2022. It was reasonable for the landlord during the complaint process to find a resolution to the complaint by confirming its intention to carry out the repairs. It is noted that the landlord tried to agree to the resident’s request to find an earlier appointment date but was unable to do so. However, when the landlord’s contractor attended, there was no access at the resident’s property.
A repair to the external light was resolved on 21 November 2022. This took 69 working days to resolve, significantly outside the landlord’s published repair target as it was reported on 15 August 2022. In mitigation, some of the delay may be attributed to the landlord’s contractor having to attend on 3 separate occasions before the repair could be resolved due to a part being required and the operative needing more time to resolve the repair.
A surveyor inspection had been completed around 6 September 2022 to assess the condition of the property. This was reasonable for the landlord to inspect and diagnose the repairs required in the property in line with its repairs policy.
The landlord considered the resident’s request for a further surveyor inspection and another visit was carried out on 16 November 2022. The landlord assessed whether it was necessary to carry out a further visit to the property on 28 November 2022 and decided that this was not as it had assessed the required repairs as minor and had not been notified that the repairs to the property would be assessed as an emergency or urgent under its repair policy. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the outcome from the previous surveyor inspections that had taken place. However, when it decided a second surveyor inspection was not warranted, it is not apparent that the reasons for its decision were appropriately communicated to the resident.
In addition, the landlord tried to obtain clarification from the resident about the extent and scope of repairs required at the property. As the resident was unable to supply the landlord with any information that disputed the assessment it had already received from its surveyors, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the information it had. It can also be seen that on occasion the resident did not allow access to the operatives to complete repairs. This was another opportunity for the landlord to obtain information about other repairs required to the property that may have been missed by the surveyor.
Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the resident is required to provide access for repairs to be carried out. From what can be seen, the resident did not allow access on 30 September 2022, 14 October 2022, 4 January 2023 and 20 March 2023. The resident has disputed that she did not allow access for the repairs to be completed and the landlord’s internal correspondence questioned whether it had followed its policy following the report of no access by the resident.
Nevertheless, the landlord appropriately involved its tenancy officers to assist with access to the resident’s property to get the repairs addressed. In addition, the landlord contacted the resident on 16 January 2023 and 6 February 2023 to obtain her agreement to get access to the property.
In her communication, the resident spoke about missed and cancelled appointments by the contractor, which the landlord had not addressed. Although a landlord is expected to have adequate administration and monitor contractor performance, the resident did not give specific dates when this occurred, and there is no evidence that the landlord was aware of the details of these alleged failed appointments.
In this particular case, it is difficult to determine the exact course of events due to a lack of evidence. This Service has not been provided with a comprehensive record of communication between the landlord and resident showing the dates repairs were raised, actions taken and the conclusions reached. Good records management helps landlords to deliver efficient and effective services so that decisions are based on good quality information regarding the landlord’s actions at the time. The Ombudsman has commented on the landlord’s record keeping and made recommendation in other investigations. Therefore, a further order will not be made here but the Ombudsman expects the landlord to take all learning points from this case into account in its overall review of its record keeping.
A delay in the completing of repairs is not always considered a service failure. However, there was little complexity to the repairs reported by the resident, yet it took a lengthy period for them to be resolved. Further, when repairs cannot be completed within a landlord’s published repairs time limit, residents should receive regular updates, explaining the reason for the delay and the expected date of completion. Good communication gives residents confidence that the landlord intends to resolve their concerns. In this particular case, while the landlord accepted it has an obligation to carry out repairs, there have been periods where it did not communicate effectively with the resident.
Through the complaints process, the landlord acknowledged some failings with the handling of repair. In addition to £150 compensation it offered for complaint handling, it offered £250 compensation for the repairs delays and the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused. While this went some way to putting things right, the Ombudsman’s view is that this was insufficient given the timescales involved in this case.
The landlord has demonstrated that it had regard to the vulnerability of the resident by involving other relevant services, such as the council, to establish whether other support was required by the resident. However, the resident also requested that due to her medical condition, the surveyor provide advance notice before an appointment. While this was a reasonable request, the available information does not confirm that this was adhered to.
The landlord has told this Service that apart from the repairs to the external light, the other repairs remain outstanding. The landlord has demonstrated a willingness to complete the repairs by attending in March 2023 and contacting the resident to agree other convenient appointment times. It is noted that when the landlord attended in March 2023, the resident did not provide access. The landlord informed this Service that it had arranged a further surveyor inspection in April 2024 to progress the repairs but the resident did not allow access and it was going to make further attempts. This indicates that the landlord was not solely at fault for the delay in resolving the repairs to the property since the end of the complaints process.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaint policy states that at the first stage, it will respond within 10 working days. It will respond within 20 working days at its final stage.
The resident complained to the landlord on 17 August 2022. The landlord provided its first complaint response on 8 September 2022, taking 16 working days to respond. This is just outside its published complaint handling timescales of 10 working days.
The resident escalated her complaint on 22 November 2022. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 9 March 2023, taking 74 working days to respond to the resident’s concerns. The landlord’s response was significantly outside its published complaint handling timescale of 20 working days. The landlord recognised this and that the delays in the complaint process caused the resident distress and inconvenience. Its final complaint response apologised to the resident and made an award of compensation for this. The £150 compensation offered was in line with this Service’s expectations for failings which affect a resident but do not significantly affect the overall outcome of the complaint.
During the complaint process, the landlord contacted the resident to clarify the reasons for her dissatisfaction and gave a comprehensive response to the matters raised. The complaint responses included an apology for the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident and an award of compensation for this.
The resident expressed that the landlord had not addressed her concerns about a comment made by a member of its staff. This has been considered within a separate complaint made to the landlord and therefore will not form part of this investigation.
This Service’s Complaint Handling Code (March 2022) encouraged the timely resolution of complaints to minimise any distress and uncertainty experienced by a resident. It is noted that the resident disagreed with the landlord’s approach to dealing with all her complaints under a single reference number. However, the landlord’s approach is in line with the related guidance.
The landlord agreed to the resident’s request that the repairs not be concluded until the final stage complaint investigation had been completed. This Service would normally expect the landlord to progress the repairs during the complaint investigation. However, in light of the resident’s vulnerabilities, it is understandable that the landlord agreed to the resident’s request.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord has acknowledged its complaint handling failures and the resulting impact on the resident. The landlord apologised to the resident for the unacceptable delay and its compensation award was in line with this Service’s Remedies Guidance. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord was fair in its assessment of its complaint handling failures and offered proportionate redress for these.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the communication regarding dog fouling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the outstanding repairs to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident regarding its handling of the complaint, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should send the resident a written apology for the service failures identified within this report.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must pay the resident £450 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the service failure in its handling of the property repairs, inclusive of the £250 it agreed in its final complaint response of 9 March 2023.
Within 4 weeks of this report, if it has not already done so, the landlord is to contact the resident to agree a convenient appointment date to carry out the repairs agreed in its complaint responses.

Recommendations

If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident the £150 compensation it offered for complaint handling in its final complaint response.
Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord to decide whether any additional repairs are required to the resident’s property and inform her in writing of its decision.