Hyde Housing Association Limited (202232838)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232838

Hyde Housing Association Limited

7 March 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of garage repairs and subsequent recommended adaptations.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord, which is a housing association. The tenancy is for a 3-bedroom house, with a garage, which began in 1994. The landlord’s records show that the resident has a physical disability. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that he has a number of disabilities, which includes limited mobility and arthritis.
On 6 September 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and reported that his garage door was loose, the bricks were damaged and the dividing wall of the driveway was falling apart.
On 21 September 2022 the landlord attended the property and said that the resident required an automatic garage door due to his age, and that the garage wall was cracked and needed reinforcement. It also said that the bottom frame of the rear garage door needed to be removed and a ramp installed so that the bins could be moved from the back garden to the front of the property.
On 18 October 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and reported that his garage door would not open, however this order was cancelled as a new order was raised on 25 October 2022 to supply and fit a motorised garage door.
Between December 2022 and January 2023, the resident made a number of phone calls to the landlord asking for an update on the repairs. He informed the landlord that he was disabled and was unable to lift the garage door. Furthermore, he also explained that a contractor had attended his property at 8am, but due to his disability he was unable to get to the door before 11am.
On 9 February 2023, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint as he had not received any further updates about the works. The resident said that:
1. In September 2022 he was told that he needed a new garage door, a ramp installed and repairs to the rear garage door, however they all remained outstanding.
2. He had chased the landlord multiple times but had not received any updates.
3. He was living alone following his wife’s death in November 2022. He explained that he was disabled and that the outstanding repairs were causing issues with his mental health and his ability to get out.
On 21 February 2023 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and confirmed it would respond by 8 March 2023.
On 8 March 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 response, where it upheld the resident’s complaint as it acknowledged that it should have completed the repairs sooner. In order to put things right, it said it had attended on 2 March 2023 to rescope and measure up for the works to the main garage door, rear garage door and access ramp. It had also appointed a single point of contact for the resident, who would be overseeing the works until completion and offered £300 compensation, made up of:
1. £50 for delay in acknowledging his complaint.
2. £50 for poor communication and time and trouble in chasing a response.
3. £100 delay in repairs.
4. £100 for distress and inconvenience caused.
On 20 March 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to escalate his complaint as he felt that the compensation should be increased. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on the same day, where it said:
1. The compensation offered was based on the information given, and relevant policies and procedures.
2. As there was no new information to consider, his request for additional compensation was not upheld.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, and in order to resolve his complaint he wanted the repairs to be completed and for the compensation to be reviewed. Furthermore, in October 2023 the resident informed the Ombudsman that:
1. The motorised garage front door was not installed until 5 May 2023.
2. The rear garage door and ramp had not been completed and that it remained a hazard. He further said that he had injured himself when trying to access his garage due to the door.
3. The single point of contact was no longer employed by the landlord and he had not heard from anyone else.
4. Following his wife’s death in November 2022, he was subjected to extreme stress while trying to deal with the repairs. He explained that he had limited mobility and had to purchase a mobility scooter in order to get around, however as he could not access his garage he had to pay a higher price for one that fitted into his car.
5. He also explained that that when the garage was fixed, he than had to change his scooter in order to be more accessible and he lost a considerable amount of money as a result.
On 15 November 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident with an updated complaint response. The landlord said that it had further reviewed the resident’s case and that it had increased its compensation offer from £300 to £1,100. It acknowledged that the ramp was still outstanding and a site manager would be attending on 20 November 2023 to assess what was needed. It would then decide if an Occupational Therapist (OT) referral needed to be made.
In February 2024, the resident provided the Ombudsman with an update regarding his complaint. He explained that the ramp was fitted and rear garage door was repaired at the end of January, but he was experiencing issues with water ingress as a result. He said he had reported this to the landlord but has not received a response.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s approach.

The Ombudsman’s role is to determine complaints by reference to what is fair in all the circumstances and decide if the landlord is responsible for maladministration or service failure.
When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its dispute resolution principles. These are high-level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes
2. Put things right, and
3. Learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred and, if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

The landlord’s handling of garage repairs and subsequent recommended adaptations.

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a legal duty on landlords to make full, effective and lasting repairs once it is given notice of disrepair. It must keep in repair and working order the structure and exterior of the property.
The landlord has not provided its repair policy, but the website states that any non–urgent repairs will be attended to and completed within 20 working days.
The landlord’s website states that aids and adaptations are defined as alterations which make a home easier to live in, so residents can enjoy more independence. The landlord does this through the provision of an aids and adaptations service, which is available to all housing association residents, who meet the eligibility criteria.
It continues to say that if a resident requires a major adaptation, such as a shower or lift then they will need to have an OT assess their needs first. The website does confirm that the whole major adaptation process can be very long due to the high demand.
The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with a copy of its aids and adaptation policy; however, it was not produced until June 2023.
Following the resident’s report of issues with his garage, the records show that the visiting staff member recommended that a ramp should be installed from the rear garage door in order to help the resident move his bins from his back garden to the front of the house and that a motorised door should be fitted to assist the resident due to his age and disability. The notes further stated that an email had been sent to the property services team regarding the adaptations.
The landlord is obliged to keep in good repair any existing fittings and is only obliged to replace components if a long lasting repair can not be completed. Therefore, the landlord’s recommendation to install a ramp and a motorised garage door would be classed as an upgrade. Furthermore, as recommendations related to the resident’s age and disability, it should have been treated as an aids and adaptions request.
Following the visit in September 2023, the Ombudsman would expect to see evidence that the landlord was keeping the customer informed of the steps it was taking following the recommendations that were made. The Service would also expect to see the landlord taking action to complete any interim repairs so that the resident could continue to use the garage, if possible.
While it is positive to see that the landlord initially identified the resident’s need for potential adaptations to his garage, it is concerning that staff within the organisation failed to identify the process that should be followed. Any recommendations for major adaptations should be done so by a qualified OT assessor to ensure that it is suitable for an individual resident.
Based on the information provided, there is no evidence to show that an email was sent to the relevant team, or that the resident was referred to an OT for an independent assessment. There is no evidence to show that the resident was informed that the recommendations should be dealt with in this way and no interim repairs were completed to the garage. This left the resident unable to use the garage door and prompted him to contact the landlord on multiple occasions requesting an update.
Following the resident’s formal complaint in February 2023, the landlord’s stage 1 response said that it had arranged for a single point of contact to oversee the works until competition. In its complaint handling, the landlord failed to acknowledge the impact that the delay had on the resident, namely that he was unable to use the garage. The resident told the landlord on multiple occasions that he could not lift the garage door due to his disabilities and that he was unable to use his mobility scooter until the garage was fixed.
As such, it did not take sufficient action to ‘put things right’ for the resident. And while it detailed how it had ‘learned from outcomes’ and what steps it had taken to prevent a recurrence of the failings, it did not follow through with what it said it would do.
Overall, there were significant failings in the landlord’s handling of repair works and adaptations to the garage. The landlord failed to keep to commitments made, there were considerable delays in completing the works and its communication with the resident was poor.
The Ombudsman notes that in the landlord’s November 2023 review of the complaint, it apologised, demonstrated learning, and offered further redress. That was a positive step. However, the Ombudsman expects landlords to undertake a sufficient investigation and review all circumstances of the case at stage 2. Had this been done, the landlord would have identified its failings sooner and had the opportunity to put things right at an earlier stage. It appears to this Service that the landlord only undertook a further review after the issue had been brought to the Ombudsman for investigation.
As it did not, the Ombudsman has determined that there was maladministration. The Service is content that the landlord has sought to put things right for the resident, however, the adverse findings in this case should encourage future learning for the landlord. In addition, the resident reports that he is still experiencing issues within the garage, due to the drainage.
The Ombudsman draws the landlord’s attention to section six of the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code, which sets out what the Ombudsman considers are the best practice principles of “putting things right” where there have been failings. This includes the principle that any remedy offered by a landlord “must reflect the extent of any service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident”. Therefore, the decision to not take into consideration those factors was not reasonable.
In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, the Ombudsman takes into account a range of factors including any distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord, and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s acts and/or omissions. It considers whether any redress is proportionate to the severity of the failing by the landlord and the impact on the resident. The Ombudsman also takes into account the evidence that has been provided.
Ultimately the Ombudsman considers what would be fair and proportionate. The aim of compensation is not to be punitive, but to provide redress for the impact of any failings by the landlord on the resident. In the case of compensation for distress and inconvenience, we are not able to quantify a definitive loss and the intention of such an award is to recognise the overall distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident.
The Ombudsman has first considered the distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident as a result of the delay in completing the repairs and adaptation works within a reasonable timeframe. Overall, while the motorised garage door was fitted in 8 months, it took 16 months for the ramp to be fitted, which meant that the resident was unable to utilise his garage fully within this time.
While the landlord offered a total of £700 compensation in recognition of distress and inconvenience and impact associated with the delay, as part of its review in November 2023, the Ombudsman does not believe that this fairly reflects the level of detriment experienced by the resident.
There is no evidence that the landlord took into consideration the resident’s disabilities, age or vulnerabilities or considered the impact this was having on him, namely that delays limited the residents day to day activities. Based on this, the ombudsman considers that these are aggravating factors which justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident. Therefore, in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused with the prolonged delay in repairing the resident’s garage, the Ombudsman has made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £1000 compensation.
Next the Ombudsman has considered the landlords failure to communicate effectively with the resident. The landlord should have taken steps to ensure he could use his garage within a reasonable timeframe, even if it were temporarily.
The Service accepts that the landlord acknowledged its poor communication with the resident, as it offered £150 redress for these failures in it’s November 2023 review of the complaint. This is also in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and therefore, an order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident this amount.
While considering whether the landlord should reimburse the resident for the expenses he incurred as a result of having to purchase a specific mobility scooter, due to his garage not being accessible, the Ombudsman must consider the landlord’s response, and whether this was fair and reasonable.
On reviewing the information available, the landlord does seem to have had the opportunity to respond to this aspect of the resident’s request. Therefore, the Ombudsman is unable to determine whether the actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances. A further recommendation has been made.
In summary, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of garage repairs and subsequent recommended adaptations.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaints policy states that it operates a 2 stage complaint process. It aims to a formal acknowledgement from a complaint handler within 5 working days, then a Stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 review response within 20 working days.
The policy also states that when the landlord gives its decision about a complaint, it will offer an opportunity for the customer to comment on the findings and set out the position. It says in most cases this will be in a dialogue with the complaints handler prior to the decision letter being issued.
It further states that a complaint response will include the landlord’s review of what has happened, its decision about the complaint and details of next steps. In many cases, the next steps will include commitments to actions which will happen in the period ahead.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response outside of its 10 working day timescale and offered £50 compensation in recognition of this. While the delay was not significant, it is positive to see that the landlord acknowledged its failing and offered a reasonable amount of compensation in an effort to put things right. Within its response it also confirmed that a single point of contact had been assigned to the resident until completion of works.
This did not happen and the works remained outstanding. The Ombudsman expects landlord’s to have a robust system in place to ensure that resolutions offered as part of the complaints process, are monitored through to completion. The landlord did not have such process in place and a recommendation has been made at the end of this report.
The landlord says that the resident escalated his complaint by email about the level of compensation offered, however the Ombudsman is unable to determine whether this is correct, as a copy of the email has not been provided.
There is also no evidence to show that the landlord tried to contact the resident to discuss his stage 2 escalation, as detailed within its own policy, before it issued the stage 2 response.
Had the landlord taken the time to contact the resident and discuss why he felt the compensation was not sufficient, it would have been able to gain a understand frustration the resident was experiencing. He would have had the opportunity to detail the impact the landlord’s actions were having on him, namely that as he was unable to use his garage and the lack of communication.
With this information, the landlord would have been able to conduct a full and fair complaint review and provide the resident with a stage 2 response, which addressed all of his points. This did not happen and was a failing.
The Ombudsman accepts that the landlord apologised and offered a £250 redress for the complaint handling failures in its November 2023. Overall, its findings and the solutions offered in this review are considered to meet this Service’s expectations and guidance for appropriate resolution and redress. In addition, its response demonstrated that it had learned lessons from these failings and had committed to service improvements to prevent this from happening again.
Even though the landlord offered appropriate redress, it did not negate the fact that the resolutions and redress offered could have been provided sooner, and within the landlord’s internal process. As such, they are not considered sufficient to avoid a finding of maladministration.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s regarding it’s handling of garage repairs and subsequent recommended adaptations.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failings identified within this determination.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £1,400, minus any sums previously paid, within 4 weeks of the date of the determination, this includes the £1,100 offered as part of the November 2023 review:
1. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience associated with the garage repairs and recommended adaptations.
2. £150 for poor communication relating to the with the garage repairs and recommended adaptations.
3. £250 for the failures identified with complaint handling.
The landlord is ordered to contact the resident within 4 weeks of the date of this determination and arrange a post inspection of the installed ramp in his garage and determine whether further works are required in relation the drainage. If works are identified the landlord must then provide the resident with a schedule of works within 2 weeks of the visit.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its processes relating to how it handles repairs, within the homes of residents who have medical conditions and vulnerabilities, including how it stores the information on its in house customer relation management system.
The landlord should review the process it has in place for recording and completing actions agreed during its complaint process. The approach should allow for detailed records of what, if any, actions the landlord has confirmed it will take and when they are completed.
The landlord should contact the resident and discuss his request for compensation/reimbursement associated with the costs while awaiting the garage repairs to be completed, primarily the costs associated with his scooter purchases. It is recommended that the landlord actively support the resident with this and provide him with a formal response.
The landlord should also review the Ombudsman’s Attitude, respect and rights spotlight report.