Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Hyde Housing Association Limited (202228916)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228916

Hyde Housing Association Limited

24 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of reports of an intermittent leak.
    2. The associated complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the first floor of a low rise block.
  2. The resident complained to her landlord in February 2023 about an ongoing intermittent leak. She said it had not responded to her concerns with appropriate urgency and the leak had caused mould in the kitchen which impacted her using it. She also said that when using the plug sockets in the kitchen, it gave electric shocks. She asked the landlord to find the source of the leak and fix it, and for it to remove the mould and refix a cupboard that had come away (due to the leak).
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 22 May 2023. It acknowledged that the leak had been ongoing since December 2022, and it apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused by its inaction to resolve the leak and address the related repairs. It said that it had found a boiler leak, and its heating team would contact her to arrange an appointment to address this. It confirmed it had made an appointment for 2 June 2023 to reinstate the kitchen unit, fix holes in the wall, and complete a mould wash. It offered £550 compensation which included £100 for its complaint handling failures, £150 for the delays in completing repairs, £150 for her efforts and £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 7 July 2023 as she remained unhappy with the ongoing leak. She said that she had contacted the heating team who said that the leak was not related to her boiler, and they had referred the matter to the landlord again. She told the landlord that the ongoing leak was affecting her mental health.
  5. On 12 September 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said that it had resolved the leak. It apologised for the delay in repairing the leak and increased its compensation offer to £800. It included a further £50 for the resident’s effort, £100 for the delays in completing repairs and £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  6. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. She disputed that it had resolved the leak as she said she was still experiencing similar concerns. She escalated her complaint to this Service, and it became a case that we could investigate on 19 January 2024. The resident has said that the landlord later resolved the leak in March 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident stated in her complaint escalation request that the landlord’s handling of the leak had affected her health. While this Service does not doubt the resident’s comments, it is outside our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme. This Service has however considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
  2. It is evident that the resident continued to experience issues with the leak after the landlord’s final complaint response. The Ombudsman cannot investigate matters that did not go through the landlord’s internal complaint process. The resident may wish to log a new complaint for the landlord to investigate her concerns and have the opportunity to put things right. She may then bring that complaint to the Ombudsman to investigate were she to be unhappy with the landlord’s response. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme.

The landlord’s handling of reports of an intermittent leak

  1. The leak in the kitchen started in December 2022. While both the landlord and the resident do not dispute this, the landlord has not provided any evidence of the initial report and any actions it took at the time. This is a record keeping failure.
  2. On 5 January 2023, the resident reported that the leak had returned and was coming through the kitchen tiles. The landlord attended the property on 23 January 2023, but could not find a leak. The time taken between the resident’s report and the appointment was in line with the landlord’s responsive repairs procedure timescales as it says it will attend anytime repairs within 20 working days of the report.
  3. However, given that the leak was in the kitchen, where she stored and prepared food, which posed a potential health and safety risk, and that the resident had already reported this in December 2022, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have responded to the repair sooner. The landlord should have considered the safety of the kitchen and the impact on the resident given that a unit had already fallen off the wall. This would have likely instilled some confidence in the resident that the landlord was taking the matter seriously.
  4. It is evident that the leak continued, and the resident contacted the landlord on 23 January 2023 to express concerns with its handling of the matter. She sent a video of the leak to the landlord on the following day, and it responded on 25 January 2023 and told her that it had escalated this to its contractor to investigate. The landlord has not provided any evidence to suggest that its contractor later investigated the matter or that it monitored the progress of the repair with its contractor. The landlord missed an opportunity to appropriately manage the repair at this point.
  5. The resident made a complaint through the landlord’s complaint webform on 13 February 2023. She said that the leak remained unresolved and that it had told her it required access to a neighbouring property to investigate, but it had not updated her with any progress. She said that the kitchen wall now had mould on it, and she experienced electric shocks when using nearby plug sockets. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have investigated the concerns regarding the safety of the electrics in line with its emergency repairs timeframe of 24 hours, but there is no evidence to suggest that it acted on this information or pro-actively responded to the resident’s concerns. This was not appropriate.
  6. The landlord raised and attended a number of repairs between March 2023 and September 2023 for the leak in the kitchen. These included:
    1. It raised an inspection on 2 March 2023, attending on 19 May 2023 and identifying works required.
    2. It raised a surveyor inspection on 27 April 2023. It attended on 10 May 2023 and completed a damp and condensation survey regarding the mould. It outlined actions to take which included investigating the leak within neighbouring properties and to repair the wall and refix the kitchen unit.
    3. On 19 May 2023, it raised works to replace the extractor fan in the kitchen, reinstate the kitchen cupboard and replace the backboard, and to repair a crack in the ceiling. It attended on 2 June 2023 but only replaced the extractor fan. It is unclear why it did not complete the other works on this date.
    4. On 2 June 2023, it raised works to complete a mould wash in the affected area. It later cancelled the job on 28 June 2023 as it is understood that the resident wanted it to resolve the leak before it completed remedial works.
    5. In the landlord’s stage 1 response on 22 May 2023, it said it would raise works for the heating team to investigate the leak. It attended on 23 June 2023 and found no leaks to the boiler or any heating pipes.
    6. On 14 July 2023, it raised further works to investigate the leak. It attended on 19 July 2023 but did not find any current leaks. It told the resident to make contact when the leak next occurred, and it would attend the same day to investigate.
    7. On 20 July 2023, it attended the property following the resident’s report of the leak reoccurring. It found a wet area near to the communal stack pipe and it requested further works to complete a CCTV survey of the stack pipe.
    8. On 31 July 2023, it raised works to complete the CCTV survey of the stack pipe. It attended on 22 August 2023, but it conducted a survey of the drains instead of the stack pipe which was an area unrelated to the leak.
    9. On 28 August 2023, it raised works to complete a mould wash of the affected area and reinstate the kitchen unit. It attended on 8 September 2023 and completed the repairs, but it could not find the leak. It also fitted a temporary ceiling cover.
  7. The Ombudsman expects landlords to respond to repairs within a reasonable timeframe which is usually set out in its repairs procedure – this was 20 working days in this case. It is appreciated that it can be difficult to find leaks within blocks of flats and this is made harder when the leak occurs intermittently. However, in this instance, the landlord repeated property inspections without making a diagnosis, did not pro-actively manage the problem and overall it unreasonably delayed its response to investigating the leak.
  8. The landlord mostly responded to each individual repair within its published timescales, but overall, it should have escalated the works sooner. It would have been appropriate to do this because of the length of time that the leak had been ongoing and the reported impact that it was having on the resident’s mental health and her ability to use the kitchen.
  9. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaint on 13 February 2023, but it raised works to inspect and complete a mould wash to the property in response to her concerns of mould. It is unclear why the landlord failed to communicate with the resident about her complaint but acted on the repairs reported.
  10. The landlord inspected the property on 30 March 2023, but it did not complete the mould wash which left the resident with mould on her kitchen wall for longer than necessary. It then inspected the mould again during a surveyor’s inspection on 10 May 2023. It delayed in arranging for a mould wash as it later raised the works on 2 June 2023. This was 75 working days after the resident reported the mould, which was not appropriate.
  11. It can be difficult to arrange access to inspect multiple properties on the same day. The Ombudsman expects landlords to make repeated attempts for access if any neighbouring properties refuse access and clearly evidence this. It should also ensure that it explains the importance of gaining access to resolve the repair. It would be appropriate for one person to take responsibility to manage the repair and function as a key point of contact for all residents to ensure that it can take swift action and consider legal options for access if required. The landlord has not evidenced that it did this.
  12. The landlord did not provide proactive updates or communication to the resident during this time. It failed to update her with any actions it was taking to resolve the leak, and this caused the resident to repeatedly contact the landlord to escalate the repairs. The landlord arranged various repairs following contact from the resident but there is no evidence to suggest that it proactively completed repairs without the resident’s involvement. This would have understandably left the resident feeling frustrated and caused further distress to her at an already challenging time. By its inaction, the landlord missed an opportunity to help reassure the resident of its intentions to resolve the leak.
  13. At the time of the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, on 22 May 2023, it believed the cause of the leak was an issue with the boiler and heating pipes. It was appropriate for the landlord to outline steps it would take to rectify the issue, however, its heating team did not inspect the property until 23 June 2023. It is unclear why the landlord did not attend sooner given the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of the leak and the length of time that the matter had been ongoing.
  14. In the landlord’s final complaint response, on 12 September 2023, it said it had resolved the leak. It apologised for the length of time it took to resolve the leak and for its lack of communication regarding how it would resolve the leak. It offered £800 compensation in total, £700 of which was for its handling of the intermittent leak.
  15. It is unclear why the landlord said it had resolved the leak. After receiving the final complaint response, the resident disputed this and said it had not found the source of the leak. The landlord’s own evidence shows that at its latest appointment on 8 September 2023, it could not find the leak and it had refixed a temporary ceiling cover to the kitchen ceiling. The response said that it had resolved all outstanding works, but it later added that it would complete some final repairs later in the month. The landlord has not provided any evidence of such outstanding repairs scheduled at the time of the final complaint response. It is therefore unclear why the landlord contradicted itself by adding that some repairs were outstanding.
  16. The landlord was therefore aware that it had not found the source of the leak and that while the intermittent leak may have not been active at the time of this appointment, it should not have said that it had resolved the leak. This understandably caused frustration to the resident as the leak had been ongoing for over 9 months at this time and it was no further forward in resolving it.
  17. Through the complaints process, it is apparent that the landlord did not appropriately consider its full failings, put things right or learn lessons from the case, due to its inaccuracy in deciding that the leak was resolved. Its offer of £700 compensation towards its handling of the intermittent leak was not sufficient. It was not proportionate to the failings identified within this investigation, particularly given the impact on the resident’s use of her property. The landlord is therefore ordered to pay an additional £500 compensation for its handling of the reports of an intermittent leak. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s approach where there has been a failure which had a significant impact on the resident over an extended period of time.

The associated complaint handling

  1. The resident made a stage 1 complaint through the landlord’s online complaints webform on 13 February 2023. The landlord did not provide the Ombudsman with any evidence of this complaint and there is no evidence to suggest that it appropriately considered or responded to the complaint at the time. This was a complaint handling failure, and likely also impacted its handling of the substantive issue of the leak.
  2. Following a lack of communication from the landlord, the resident contacted this Service. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 22 April 2023 and asked it to provide an acknowledgement of the complaint within 5 working days, which it did. This Service also asked it to provide its stage 1 complaint response within a further 10 working days by 18 May 2023, which it did not. It provided its response on 22 May 2023. While it delayed its response by only a further 2 working days, this was in addition to the time that the resident had already been waiting for its response which was not acceptable.
  3. Within the landlord’s complaint responses, it said that the resident made her complaint in April 2023. It is understood that the landlord referenced the date that the Ombudsman wrote to it about the complaint. This would have understandably caused further distress to the resident as she had been waiting for its complaint response for a significantly longer period than the one referred to by the landlord. This minimised the inconvenience that its delayed response would have caused to the resident.
  4. On 24 May 2023, the resident contacted the landlord regarding her concerns with its stage 1 complaint response and her dissatisfaction that it had not found the source of the leak. While she did not address this contact as an escalation request, the landlord did not respond to or acknowledge her email, or the concerns raised. The landlord therefore missed an opportunity to clarify whether the resident wished to escalate her complaint and manage her concerns through its internal complaint process. The resident later asked the landlord to respond to her email and it again missed a further opportunity to consider her concerns as it did not reply to her. It only responded on 26 June 2023, following the resident chasing the landlord a third time, which was not appropriate.
  5. On 7 July 2023, the resident formally requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The landlord has not evidenced that it responded to her escalation request at the time. The resident copied the landlord into an email to this Service on 11 August 2023 about her concern with its handling of her complaint. It later acknowledged her complaint on 18 August 2023 and provided its stage 2 complaint response on 12 September 2023. It provided its response 47 days after the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. This was not in line with the landlord’s complaints procedure which states that it will provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the escalation request. The landlord’s final complaint response did not acknowledge its complaint handling failures and delays and it did not make any attempt at offering redress for its handling of the escalated complaint.
  6. The landlord’s final complaint response included references to a roof repair and delays in removing scaffolding. This was not part of the resident’s complaint, and it is unclear why the landlord mentioned this in its complaint response. On 13 September 2023, the resident told the landlord that the scaffolding and roof repair were not related to her complaint and had no relevance to the ongoing leak. She also asked whether it had copied this from another resident’s complaint because it had no relevance to her own.
  7. The inaccuracies within the final complaint response would have understandably added further distress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord is recommended to consider what is relevant to a complaint and only include such matters in its complaint responses to prevent confusion or distress caused to the resident.
  8. The landlord offered £100 compensation towards its complaint handling failures at stage 1, but it did not offer any redress towards its failures at stage 2. It provided a compensation acceptance form with both complaint responses which had a box for the resident to sign to accept the compensation offered. However, in signing to accept the compensation, it stated that the resident also agreed for the landlord to settle and close the complaint.
  9. It was inappropriate for the landlord to refer to the offer in this way as it would have understandably caused confusion to the resident about whether she could accept the offer while progressing the complaint. The landlord is recommended to review its wording of the form and consider removing this statement to show that the complaint can be escalated while also accepting the compensation offered.
  10. The landlord’s offer of £100 towards its complaint handling failures was not sufficient to offer full redress for its failings, and it only attempted redress for its failures at stage 1 of its complaint process. The level of compensation offered is therefore not sufficient for its overall complaint handling. The landlord is ordered to pay an additional £150 for its complaint handling failures identified within this investigation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. This is an appropriate award where the landlord has made an attempt to put things right but its offer was not proportionate to the failings identified within the investigation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of an intermittent leak.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the associated complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for its handling of reports of an intermittent leak, including its lack of communication and overall delayed response to resolve the leak. It should also apologise for its complaint handling failures identified within this investigation.
    2. Pay £1,450 compensation. This should be paid directly to the resident and not to the rent account. This is made up of:
      1. the £800 awarded in the landlord’s final complaint response, if it has not already done so;
      2. an additional £500 for the landlord’s handling of reports of an intermittent leak;
      3. an additional £150 for the landlord’s associated complaint handling.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider what is relevant to a complaint and only include such matters in its complaint responses to prevent confusion or distress caused to the resident.
  2. The landlord should review the wording of its compensation acceptance form and consider removing, or amending, the statement referred to in paragraphs 34-35 to show that the resident can escalate a complaint while also accepting the compensation offered.