Hyde Housing Association Limited (202234131)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234131

Hyde Housing Association Limited

11 October 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 landlord’s:
1. handling of lift repairs in 2022.
2. response to the resident’s request for reimbursement of service charges relating to the lift.
The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s:
1. complaint handling.
2. record keeping.

Background

The resident is a shared owner. She has lived in her 1 bedroom, fourth floor flat since April 2019. The landlord does not have a record of any vulnerabilities for the resident. At the time of the resident’s complaint, she had a young child.
On 7 December 2022 the landlord received a report that the lift was out of service. An operative attended that day and subsequently ordered parts for the remedial works. The lift remained out of service, until it was repaired on 23 December 2022.
The landlord’s records show that there were no further reports about the lift in the following months.
On 21 July 2023 we contacted the landlord following communication from the resident. We said that the resident had raised concerns:
1. about the landlord’s handling of her reports that the lift had been out of service “for over 5 weeks”.
2. that the property was a new build and the lift had broken down three times since it was built in 2019. The lift had broken down in November and December 2021 and December 2022. The resident also wished for the landlord to provide her with lift maintenance records.
3. about the landlord’s response to her request for service charge reimbursement.
On 24 August 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said:
1. It was “clear” that it should have completed the lift repairs “much sooner”.
2. it had provided the resident with a full history of the lift maintenance records via email.
3. Having reviewed the repair records, it could confirm that the lift was reported out of order on 7 December 2022. An engineer attended the same day and reported there was any issue with the drive. After multiple appointments, the contractor established that it needed parts from overseas and this would cause a delay. Once the parts arrived, an appointment was made for 23 December 2022. The lift was left in full working order that day. The repair was carried out in line with its service level agreement and there was therefore no service failure.
4. it would not reimburse the resident her service charge for the period the lift was out of service as it “was not the cause for the delay of the lift [sic]”. It also said that the charge was related to repairing and maintaining the lift, therefore a reimbursement of that charge would “not be needed”.
5. It acknowledged that the resident had been contacting it about the matter since 2021. However, its complaint policy stated that it was only able to investigate service failures that may have occurred up to six months prior to the receipt of the resident’s complaint..
It offered the resident £650 compensation as follows:
1. £100 for complaint handling failures.
2. £100 for the resident’s “customer effort”.
3. £200 for service delivery delays.
4. £250 for distress and inconvenience.
On 4 September 2023 the resident escalated her complaint. She said:
1. The landlord reviewed her complaint in “isolation”. She said that the lift outage in November 2021 had not been taken into account in the landlord’s response and compensation offer. She had previously made complaints about the lift being out of service in 2021. She questioned why the landlord had not investigated those complaints in line with its complaints policy.
2. the landlord’s account in its response was inaccurate. She said that the lift stopped working on 23 November 2022 and was repaired on 30 November. However, it stopped working again “less than a week later.”
3. the inspections records that the landlord had provided showed that the lift was inspected on 18 November and 2 December 2022. She questioned why the lift then broke down on 23 November and 7 December 2022.
4. The landlord had proposed how it would improve the functionality of the lift and service levels going forward. She also asked that the landlord provide past and future monthly service attendance forms.
5. She requested further compensation for the inconvenience caused by the lift being out of service. She explained that she had spent “twice as much money” than the landlord had offered in order to have someone stay with her so she could be helped up and down the stairs with her child and pushchair.
On 11 October 2023 the landlord issued a stage 2 response. It said:
1. It had made its decision based on the information that the resident had provided, conversations with the people involved and its relevant policies and procedures.
2. it had checked all the details of the resident’s complaint thoroughly and responded to all the points that she had made. Therefore, it had given the resident a fair reply.
3. the resident had not provided any new information about the complaint to consider. Therefore it would not change its decision as it was based on the information the resident had provided it.

Legislation, policies and procedures

Landlords are required to ensure that lifting equipment (including lifting accessories) provided for use within its properties are safe in accordance with the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998.
At the time of the complaint, the landlord’s responsive repair policy stated:
1. it would attend to an emergency repair within 4 hours and routine appointments within 20 working days.
2. any follow up works would be completed within 20 working days.
Its complaint policy stated:
1. it may decline to investigate a complaint about a specific incident or service failure that occurred over 6 months prior to the complaint being made.
2. it had a two stage complaint process. It responded to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2.
3. residents could ask for their complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of its process. “In most cases”, it would agree to look again at its decision and consider any additional information provided.
4. it would not agree to escalate a complaint to stage 2 where the complaint had been upheld but the resident had requested an increase in compensation offered. The request would be dealt with as a compensation review within the stage 1 resolution discussion.

Assessment and findings

Scope

The resident has stated that she had raised her concerns about the lift being out of service and the associated service charges in 2021. While the resident’s comments are not disputed, she has not provided any evidence of these complaints, or that the landlord failed to respond to her concerns at the time. Therefore, taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from November 2022 onwards. This is where records indicate the beginning of events leading up to the residents’ complaint. Reference to events that occurred prior to that date is made in this report to provide context.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the lift breakdown in late 2022

We have not been provided with a policy or guidance setting out the landlord’s service line agreements in relation to lift repairs. It is therefore unclear what standards apply in relation to completing lift repairs. In the absence of such information, we have assessed the landlord’s actions on the basis of reasonableness.
The landlord’s records demonstrate that in 2022 the lift was serviced approximately 7 times.
Each service included a visual check. The records show that this “included but was not limited to”:
1. controller, brake unit, motors/generators, winding gear, car entrances, door/gate operators.
2. safety gear/guides, lift alarm, landing entrances, fire controls, overspeed governor, and shaft equipment.
The outcome of all the visits stated that the lift elements serviced were either “worn, but serviceable,” or “serviceable.”
A “Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations” (LOLER) lift inspection was carried out in October 2022. The outcome of the report stated:
1. the auto dialler should be reconnected and within 1 day.
2. the car toe guard and the shaft lights should be refitted and within a month.
3. the lift was safe to operate.
The evidence available suggests that the lift was reasonably serviced and inspected in 2022. We do not have the outcome of the landlord’s actions following the LOLER inspection. It is noted that regular servicing and inspections provide some understanding of a lift’s condition at the time of the inspection. They also provide, where necessary, the landlord with actions to take so to ensure that the lift remains safe and in good working order. However, these inspections and services do not prevent lifts from breaking down and needing repairs.
The evidence available suggests that the lift was out of service from 7 to 22 December 2022. It further suggests that the landlord’s contractor attended to the lift on 7 December. While the landlord’s responsive policy does not specifically state that a lift breakdown is an emergency repair, it is widely accepted as such. Therefore the contractor’s attendance was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s policy. The repair could not be completed, and the lift remained out of service.
The evidence shows that the landlord’s contractor investigated the cause of the breakdown further. It found that the lift needed a new “IMEMM” board. The evidence available states its contractor :
1. sourced the part on 16 December 2022.
2. received the part between 19-21 December 2022.
3. repaired the lift on 23 December 2022.
While this Service requested a copy of the contractor’s works, the evidence has not been provided. It is unclear whether the landlord does not have this information, if no record was kept, or if the landlord simply failed to provide it for the purposes of this investigation. Regardless, this is a record keeping failing. The landlord should ensure that it, and those working on its behalf, maintain a clear and accurate audit trail of all actions relating to a repair. Not only do such records assist the landlord in reviewing its own service provision, they are also imperative in the event of an independent investigation conducted by organisations such as the Ombudsman.
In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord said that it should have completed the lift repairs “much sooner.” However, it went on to say that the repair was completed within its service level agreement and therefore there was no service failure. That these statements are conflicting is considered further in our assessment of the landlord’s complaint handling. Nonetheless, the landlord offered the resident £550 for delays in service delivery, distress and inconvenience caused and “customer “effort.” Given the period of time that the lift was out of service, this award was proportionate in the circumstances. However, the basis for the award is unclear given the landlord’s comments that it was not responsible for the delay in completing the repairs.
The resident has not disputed the events relating to the repair in December 2022. However, she did explain that that lift was out of service between 23 November and 30 November 2022. She was therefore concerned that further repairs were required “less than a week” later. The landlord did not address this when responding to the resident’s complaint. The landlord should reasonably have done so. That it did not was a failing in its complaint handling which left the resident’s concerns unaddressed. From the evidence that is available, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to establish what transpired in November 2022 and whether the cause for the breakdown then was the same or connected to the breakdown in December 2022. However, it is acknowledged that the lifts breaking down with such frequency would reasonably have been the cause of frustration and concern for the resident. We cannot speculate as to why the lift broke down again so soon after the November 2022 repair. However, we have made an order for the landlord to investigate this, and the resident’s concerns about the frequency with which the lifts have been breaking down, now. The landlord should ensure that it undertakes a thorough investigation into the resident’s concerns and provides a comprehensive response.
There is no evidence that the lift repairs in December 2022 were unduly delayed or unnecessarily protracted. However, the landlord advised at stage 2 that they should have been completed sooner and it offered compensation accordingly. While the compensation offered is proportionate for the period of time that the lift was out of service, the landlord’s basis for this award is somewhat unclear given its comments that it was not responsible for the delay. Nevertheless, as identified, the landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns about the period of disrepair immediately preceding December 2022, and it should reasonably have done so. We cannot assess this concern based on the evidence available. However, we have found service failure by the landlord and ordered it to investigate the resident’s concerns about the frequency of lift breakdowns now.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a reimbursement of service charges relating to the repair and maintenance costs of the lift

In its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged that the resident had queried a service charge reimbursement for the times the lift was out of service. However, it said that as it was not the “cause for the delay” and that the service charge was for repairing and maintaining the lift, reimbursement would not be needed.
The landlord’s position was reasonable. However, the resident’s complaint inferred that the lift being out of order was at least, in part caused by mismanagement of the lift’s repairs and maintenance. Therefore, the landlord’s response that the reimbursement was “not needed” for those charges without providing further explanation was unreasonable.
In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider the resident’s concerns further. It could reasonably have reviewed its records and provided the resident with a summary of its attendances and whether it had identified any failings in its maintenance or repairs of the lift. Such an approach would have demonstrated that the landlord had engaged with the complaint in a meaningful way, and may reasonably have provided the resident with some reassurance.
This Service has been provided with a copy of the maintenance breakdowns and noted that while it is not clear, on approximately 2 occasions in 2022 the landlord’s contractor was unable to gain access to the lift to carry out the service. These non-access attendances do not suggest that the lift was “defective” or contributed to the lift’s breakdown in 2022. However, the evidence suggests that the service was not completed as planned. Therefore a recommendation has been made for the landlord to investigate the matter.
Overall, while the landlord’s complaint response provided some explanation of its position, it did not go far enough. Therefore there was service failure in the landlord’s the resident’s request for a reimbursement of service charges relating to the repair and maintenance costs of the lift.

The landlord’s complaint handling

It is unclear from the evidence available whether the resident made the landlord aware of her concerns prior contacting our Service. In the absence of any evidence suggesting the resident had tried to make a complaint directly to the landlord, we have considered that the landlord was first informed of her dissatisfaction when we contacted it on 21 July 2023.
In accordance with its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was due on 15 August 2023. It informed the resident on 17 August that it had extended its response deadline to 1 September 2023. The evidence suggests that the landlord only told the resident that it would need additional time to respond until after the deadline had passed. This was inappropriate and not Code compliant. The landlord issued its response on 24 August 2023, which was approximately 14 working days passed its policy timescales of 10 working days. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the failing and offered the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by this failing. This was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.
In its response the landlord stated that the it should have completed the lift repairs “much sooner” and that there were delays in the resolving the repair. However, later in its response, it said that the repair was carried out within its service level agreement, and that there had been no service failure. These statements are contradictory and would understandably have been the cause of confusion for the resident. The Code states that landlords must provide clear reasons for any decisions. In this case the landlord’s conflicting statements in its response meant that it failed to do so.
It offered the resident £550 compensation for its handling of the repairs to the lift in 2022. Its breakdown of the compensation went some way to explain the reward in relation to it failures. However, it did not go far enough. Landlords should ensure that offers of compensation are adequately explained, with a detailed breakdown as necessary. With the contradictory statements contained in the complaint response, the basis for the award was unclear.
The landlord stated that it was unable to look into the resident’s concerns about the lift being out of service in late 2021 because it was only able to investigate service failures that may have occurred up to 6 months prior to the receipt of the resident’s complaint. While this may have been the case, given that the resident raised her concerns that the amount of lift breakdowns were high considering that she was in a new build, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered exercising its discretion and to have investigated the matter further. Especially as the resident had raised concerns about the services charges relating to the repair and maintenance of the lift. This would have provide the landlord with an opportunity to ensure that it had satisfied the resident and itself that the it reviewed the matter appropriately.
On 4 September 2023 the resident escalated her complaint. She raised concerns about the landlord’s stage 1 response and asked for further clarification around the lift break down in 2022. Some of her concerns included:
1. why the lift had broken down on occasions when it had at that time, been recently serviced.
2. she had made previous complaints about when lift being out of service in November 2021 that the landlord had not investigated.
3. the landlord’s response included “inaccurate” dates around when the lift became out of service in late 2022.
In response the landlord said that the resident had not provided it with any new information. It said that it had given her a fair reply and that it would not change its decision.
The landlord’s complaint policy stated that “in most cases” it would review its stage 1 complaint response and consider any additional information. In addition, our Code states that “if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure, unless an exclusion ground now applies.”
In her escalation request the resident raised concerns about the accuracy of the landlord’s stage 1 response, sought further clarification around the 2022 lift breakdowns and asked that the landlord provide further information. Therefore that the landlord did not allow the resident’s escalated complaint to be investigated under its stage 2 response was unreasonable and not Code compliant.
The resident also told the landlord in her escalated complaint that she had spent more money during the period the lift was out of service in 2022than its compensation offer. As such, the resident had advised that the complaint had not been resolved to her satisfaction and the landlord should reasonably have taken steps to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of its process. That it did not take any action on the matter, is a further failing.
Not only is it imperative that residents should have the opportunity to have their complaint reviewed by a person not previously involved at stage 1, it is also in the landlord’s interests to ensure that complaints are reviewed. The stage 2 process allows the landlord the opportunity to review its handling of the matter and its initial complaint response and consider whether the correct outcome had been reached and if any action is required to put things right. As such, that the landlord did not utilise its full complaints procedure was not only a failing that was the cause of detriment to the resident, but it was a missed opportunity to identify the failings that have been highlighted by our investigation. Therefore there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord’s handling of the lift repairs in 2022.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord’s handling response to the resident’s request for a reimbursement of service charges relating to the lift.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should do the following:
1. apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this case, in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.
2. pay the resident £500 compensation, which is comprised of:
  1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s request for a reimbursement of services relating to the repair and maintenance costs of the lift.
  2. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures identified by this investigation.
  3. reoffer the resident the compensation it offered in its complaint responses, if it has not already been paid.
3. the landlord should investigate the lift breakdown in November 2022. It should provide a comprehensive response to the resident and this Service.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should:
1. within 8 weeks of the date of this determination, it should review its 2022 service attendance forms. Where it is noted there has been a non-access attendance, it should investigate the matter further and confirm whether or not the service went ahead. The landlord should share the outcome of its review with the Ombudsman and the resident, and consider whether a proportionate refund of the service charge is warranted in the circumstances.
2. review its record keeping practices in line with our May 2023 ‘Knowledge and Information’ spotlight report. In particular, ensuring that its contractor work orders are recorded and easily accessible on its system.