Hyde Housing Association Limited (202303564)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303564

Hyde Housing Association Limited

26 January 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 overhanging tree blocking the communal light sensor.
   2. The associated complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident holds an assured non-shorthold tenancy. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the third floor.
3. The resident notified the landlord of a communal repair issue involving a tree shading the communal light sensor on the outside of the building. This caused the lights in the internal communal hallways to remain on during the day and night. The tree was in a neighbouring garden which the landlord also managed. It is unclear when the resident first reported the issue to the landlord, however, he asked for his repair request to be raised as a complaint on 4 August 2022 following what he said were repeated requests for the issue to be resolved. He then contacted the landlord on 7 occasions between 4 August 2022 and 20 April 2023. There is no evidence to show that the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at the time.
4. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 28 March 2023. He said that he had contacted the landlord multiple times and had asked for a complaint to be raised previously which was not addressed. He asked for either the tree to be cut back or for the sensor to be moved to resolve the issue. When making the complaint to the landlord, he also attached a copy of the complaint details that he had brought to this Service. He told this Service that the communal lighting had been left on throughout the day and he was concerned that the increased electricity consumption would affect his monthly service charge. This was not noted in the content of the resident’s complaint to the landlord.
5. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 6 April 2023. It provided the stage 1 complaint response on 19 April 2023. It apologised for the inconvenience it had caused by not responding sooner to the repair or the resident’s contacts on multiple occasions. It offered £100 compensation for the poor communication and the time and trouble it had caused to the resident. It apologised that its responses to his queries about the repair were outside of its expected timescales. It said its estates services contract manager had attended on 19 April 2023 and it would arrange for the tree to be cut back to ensure that the sensor worked properly. It gave him contact details for the manager who would ensure that the repair was completed.
6. On 24 April 2023, the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2. He said that the compensation offered was not sufficient as he felt the landlord should have reported and addressed the communal repair before he had raised the issue. He said that the property managers were required to visit and inspect the communal areas. He said the compensation offered did not reflect his time and trouble in making the complaint.
7. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 27 April 2023. It outlined the resident’s complaint as him being unhappy with the stage 1 complaint response and the amount of compensation awarded. It said that the resident had not provided any new information regarding the complaint and so it would not change its decision. It said it had checked the details of the complaint and that its stage 1 response was in line with its policy, and it had responded to the points he had raised.
8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. On 27 April 2023, he contacted this Service and said that the landlord failed to follow its own policy with the repair taking too long to complete. He asked this Service to investigate his complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. In the resident’s communication with this Service, he raised his concern that his service charge would increase due to the increased electricity usage as a result of the communal lights remaining on. While the Ombudsman appreciates the resident’s concern, there is a lack of evidence to show that his service charge had increased at the time or that the landlord had the opportunity to review this.
10. In line with paragraph 42(d) of the Scheme, this Service may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. It is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether service charges are reasonable or payable, however, a recommendation has been made below for the landlord to address these concerns.

The landlord’s handling of reports of an overhanging tree blocking the communal light sensor

11. The landlord is responsible for repairs in communal areas. Its responsive repairs operational procedure states that its property managers can identify and raise repairs from site, including during communal inspections. The landlord’s estate management procedure states that property managers complete communal inspections at varying frequencies and the landlord has confirmed that the resident’s building was inspected monthly. The procedure further states that property managers should check all recent communal repairs raised within the last 3 months and review these areas during inspections.
12. It is evident that the landlord’s inspection process had not highlighted the issue with the communal lights remaining on day and night. It is unclear why this issue was not identified prior to the resident’s reports during the routine inspections. However, despite the resident’s multiple reports between August 2022 and April 2023, there is little evidence to suggest that the issue was passed to the landlord’s estate management team to resolve or monitored during this time. While an inspection on 15 February 2023 did note that a tree needed to be cut, it remains unclear as to whether this related to the same tree causing the lights to remain on. This Service has not seen further evidence to show that the tree was logged as a communal repair during these inspections, or identified as being cut back, which would have been appropriate and in line with its policy.
13. The landlord’s tree management policy guidance states that the estate inspections should address elements related to trees. This includes reporting whether there are any overhanging tree branches in public areas and if any trees are obstructing light from properties or from solar panels. This policy does not give a specific reference to trees situated in neighbouring properties whereby the trees are not a hazard or a danger. The landlord’s tree management policy guidance could be clearer to help resolve similar issues in the future.
14. The landlord acted on the resident’s report of the communal lights staying on all day. However, there is a lack of evidence to confirm that it communicated its action to the resident at the time. On 9 December 2022 and 19 January 2023, the landlord’s electrical contractors attended to investigate whether the lights were working properly. It was appropriate for the landlord to instruct an electrical assessment to ensure that there was not a fault with the sensor or light itself. However, it is unclear why it arranged a second electrical assessment when it was evident that the sensors and lighting did not have any faults following the initial assessment. It is this Service’s view that this contributed to the overall delay in resolving the issue.
15. Despite the further electrical assessment not finding a fault with the light or sensor, there is a lack of evidence to suggest any further steps were taken to identify the cause of the issue until 19 April 2023. The tree was then cut back on 10 July 2023, this was approximately 11 months since the resident initially raised his concerns. While tree cutting works would be considered major works and so outside of the landlord’s responsive repairs timeframe, it should have kept the resident updated of when it expected to be able to do the works to resolve the repair.
16. The landlord’s failure to provide updates to the resident resulted in him contacting it repeatedly as he assumed it was not acting on the repair he had reported. This would have understandably added distress and inconvenience to the resident due to the time spent chasing the landlord. The resident understandably lost confidence with the landlord during this time because of the lack of communication.
17. While the Ombudsman has not seen evidence of any further reports from the resident to show that there remained an issue following the tree works, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to inspect the communal lights to ensure the issue was resolved and take steps to confirm this to the resident. The landlord has told this Service that it planned to complete a post inspection in January 2024. This was a further 6 months after the works were completed and is not considered an appropriate timescale given that its property managers completed monthly inspections of the site and should have had the opportunity to inspect this.
18. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response from 21 April 2023, it apologised that it had not completed the repairs sooner and it upheld the complaint. While the apology was appropriate given the circumstances, the landlord’s offer of £100 compensation was not sufficient. It said that this was to make up for the experience that the resident had, including poor communication and his time and trouble pursuing the complaint. This would have included both the time taken to resolve the substantive repair issue and the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
19. The amount of compensation that the landlord offered in its stage 1 complaint response does not reflect the extent of the resident’s time and trouble that he experienced. The resident contacted the landlord on at least 7 occasions between August 2022 and April 2023 to try to receive an update on the repair request. The lack of communication from the landlord understandably added distress and inconvenience to the resident throughout this time. Although the landlord did acknowledge its failure in communication, its overall offer of £100 compensation is not considered to be proportionate. This is in view of the time and trouble spent by the resident in pursuing his concerns over an 11 month period and the lack of communication from the landlord.
20. In line with this Service’s remedies guidance, the landlord is ordered to pay £200 compensation to the resident in regards to the distress and inconvenience caused.

The associated complaint handling

21. The resident raised a complaint on 4 August 2022. The landlord did not respond to this complaint. This was a failing in the landlord’s complaint handling. The resident understandably lost confidence in the landlord as its failure to consider his complaint, and his subsequent communication, likely meant that he assumed that the landlord was not taking both the complaint and the issue seriously.
22. Following the resident’s second attempt at making a complaint, on 28 March 2023, the landlord managed the complaint appropriately. It responded in line with its policy timescales at each stage of the complaint in line with its internal complaints procedure.
23. The resident provided the complaint form he had logged with this Service alongside his formal complaint on 28 March 2023. In this, he raised specific concerns about the impact of the increased energy usage on his monthly service charge. It would have been good practice for the landlord to respond to the service charges concern which was identified on the attached document to the complaint. A recommendation has been made to address this.
24. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 19 April 2023. It acknowledged that by not responding to the resident’s first complaint in August 2022, its response was now outside of its expected response times. It apologised for the time it had taken to respond and that this was not the level of service that the resident deserved. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its complaint handling failure when the complaint was first made.
25. The redress that the landlord offered included an apology and £100 compensation. This compensation was sufficient to acknowledge the failures in the landlord’s handling of the complaint albeit it was presumably also offered in recognition of the delay with the substantive communal lighting issue and a separate award should have been made for the complaint handling.
26. The landlord had started to complete works before the resident then complained for a second time on 28 March 2023. This was good practice. It showed that the landlord had not caused delays in the substantive issue being resolved despite its failure to respond to the original complaint from August 2022. It explained in its complaint response how it would put things right. It was appropriate for the landlord to do this.
27. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 24 April 2023. He was unhappy with the level of compensation that the landlord had offered. He said that he felt his concerns had not been fully addressed. The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 27 April 2023. It confirmed that it reconsidered the details provided in the stage 1 complaint response and that it was correct. It said that as there was no new information to consider, it would not be changing its decision on the compensation awarded.
28. The stage 2 complaint response provides the landlord with an opportunity to review its findings and provide more clarity to try and resolve the issue. The landlord’s response lacked clarity and was dismissive of the resident’s concerns. This meant that it lost an additional opportunity to thoroughly review its prior actions.
29. While the landlord had acknowledged its failure to respond to the resident’s communication, it did not specifically acknowledge that the resident had asked for his concerns to be raised as a formal complaint in August 2022. The landlord did not explain the reason why the complaint was not addressed at the time, or fully acknowledge its complaint handling failings. When the landlord was asked to provide evidence of the complaint to this Service, it did not provide a copy of the complaint made in August 2022. It is unclear why the landlord did not provide this as it related to both the complaint handling and the substantive issue.
30. The landlord’s overall offer of £100 for its poor communication and the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing his concerns is not considered to be sufficient. It is not proportionate in view of the landlord’s failure to formally accept and respond to his concerns when they were first raised as a complaint in August 2022.

 Determination

31. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of an overhanging tree blocking the communal light sensor.
32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the associated complaint handling.

Orders

33. Within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay £100 compensation caused by the inconvenience, and subsequent time and trouble, caused by the landlord’s failure to formally address the resident’s complaint in August 2022. This should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against the rent account.
    2. Pay £200 compensation for its handling of reports of an overhanging tree blocking the communal light sensor. This is inclusive of the landlord’s previous offer of £100, unless this has already been paid. This should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against the rent account.
    3. Review why the inspection reports did not pick up on the communal repair reports regarding the lights remaining on throughout the day. It should reply to this Service with information regarding what it will do to ensure that inspections pick up on issues such as this in the future.
    4. Provide training, or issue reminders, to its repairs team regarding the importance of keeping residents updated with any works booked in to resolve a repair.
34. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

35. The landlord should consider completing timely post inspections for repair works going forward. This would ensure that any further issues or works needed are identified.
36. The landlord should consider updating its tree management policy guidance to include instances identified in this report, where neighbouring trees affect its properties but are not a hazard or a danger.
37. The landlord should consider assessing the impact of increased electricity costs regarding the communal lighting and whether this should be reflected in the service charges for this block.