Hyde Housing Association Limited (202318965)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318965

Hyde Housing Association Limited

27 August 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 handling of:
1. Repairs to the heating and hot water system.
2. Reports of pests in the property.
3. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
4. Reports of damp and mould.
5. The maintenance of communal areas.

Background

At the time of the events referred to in this investigation, the resident was an assured tenant of the landlord. She lived at the property with her husband and 2 children from May 2013. The property is a 2-bedroom first-floor flat.
On 18 May 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. She was unhappy with its handling of repairs to the boiler and hot water cylinder. There had been attempts to repair the heating system but error codes returned on the boiler. The hot water would run out quickly and the hot water cylinder had leaked into the flat below. She asked if the landlord would replace the boiler and cylinder. Additionally, she said that there were mice in the property and she was waiting for an update from the landlord’s pest control contractor.
The landlord called the resident the following day to discuss her complaint. She followed up the call by emailing the landlord and thanking it for the contact. She sent photos of damp in the bedroom and said that her son had asthma which was being made worse by the damp. She asked if the landlord could arrange a repair appointment to treat the damp in the summer school holiday. She also said that her neighbours were using drugs, swearing, fighting, and had dogs that barked all hours of the night.
The resident emailed the landlord on 23 May 2023 and said that its contractor had not attended the appointments to repair the heating system. She asked it to repair the heating system and resolve the damp issues urgently.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 24 May 2023 asking for an extension to issue its stage 1 response. It said that it would send its response by 7 June 2023.
On 30 May 2023 the resident told the landlord:
1. The boiler was still showing error codes. She was having to frequently release the pressure manually. She believed that the boiler and cylinder required replacement. She had no update from the contractor.
2. The smell of dogs was becoming worse from her neighbour. The whole hallway smelled and it was coming through the windows.
3. The cleaners had not cleaned the block for weeks.
4. She had reported issues with mice in the property and had had no update.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 15 June 2023. It set out its understanding of the complaint. It partially upheld the complaint. It said:
1. A mould wash treatment was conducted on 2 June 2023.
2. It should have resolved the repairs to the boiler sooner. It was advised that parts were available to repair the boiler, which it would do rather than replace the system. Its heating contractor would contact the resident directly and arrange a repair.
3. It apologised for the number of repairs required and recognised that this would have caused inconvenience.
4. It offered £200 in compensation. This was comprised of:
  1. £50 for complaint handling failure.
  2. £50 for delays.
  3. £100 for distress and inconvenience.
On 19 July 2023 the resident wrote to her local Councillor asking for support. She raised issues with the heating system, mice in the property, rats in the communal areas, and the ASB from her neighbours. The Councillor wrote to the landlord on the resident’s behalf and asked it to investigate her reports.
On 30 July 2023 the resident emailed the landlord. She said that the boiler parts had been installed that week but were unsuccessful. She was presented with error codes on the boiler a few days later. The water was cold and the hot water cylinder was overheating. She reported the issues to the contractor, who said they would attend the same day.
The resident sought to escalate her complaint on 3 August 2023. She said:
1. She was waiting for a reply about the landlord’s plans to repair the boiler.
2. She had received no update regarding issues with rats in the communal bin area. The bins were overflowing and rubbish was strewn about the floor.
3. She was waiting for the landlord to repair holes in the kitchen that allowed mice to enter the property.
The following day the resident reported that she had no hot water.
The landlord said it would arrange pest control services to treat the rats in the communal areas on 7 August 2023.
The landlord’s internal records from August 2023 show that the contractor had to conduct repairs to the boiler 6 times. It noted that the most recent repair lasted 4 days before error codes returned. The water kept going cold in the property and the resident was having to release the pressure each time to get hold water. Some reports were made out of hours and cancelled by the resident as the contractor had taken too long to arrive.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 11 August 2023. It said that it would issue its response by 8 September 2023.
The resident made a further complaint to the landlord on 19 August 2023. She said:
1. She was unhappy with the condition of the communal areas. She had contacted Environmental Health about this. She asked the landlord to inspect the condition of the block.
2. There was a smell of dogs coming from her neighbour’s property. There was dog hair and mess in the communal areas.
3. She had been waiting for the landlord to repair the holes in the kitchen that allowed mice into the property. The pest control contractor had baited the area for a second time.
4. The issues with the heating system were unresolved.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 23 August 2023. It provided a summary of the repairs to the heating system. It agreed that it had not repaired the boiler when it should have. It had not communicated with the resident to provide reassurance on how it would rectify the leak. It apologised for the time taken. It offered £300 compensation. This was comprised of:
1. £100 for time and trouble.
2. £100 for delays to complete repairs.
3. £100 for distress and inconvenience.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s second complaint on 24 August 2023. It considered the complaint to be about:
1. Overflowing bins
2. Rodent infestation
3. Issues with misuse of the communal area
4. Defective boiler and water cylinder
The resident emailed the landlord on 3 September 2023. She said that the landlord had deep cleaned the communal carpets, but a neighbour had covered the carpets in mess shortly afterwards. She sent photos of the carpets and included evidence of mice in the communal area. She asked for updates on the repairs to the holes in the property and to the heating system.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 7 September 2023. It sought an extension to issue its stage 1 response. It said that it would issue its response by 21 September 2023.
The resident emailed the landlord on 24 September 2023. She said that she had no response to messages left with the landlord. She had also received no update from the contractor. Her neighbour had put blue paint all over the carpets. No one had repaired the holes in the property. She was unhappy with the landlord’s offer of £300 compensation.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 27 September 2023. It upheld the complaint. It said:
1. Residents had been misusing the communal bin store. There was nothing it could do to prevent this.
2. It had sent a notice to residents to stop letting their dogs use the communal areas for toileting. It suggested that the resident report new incidents to its ASB team.
3. It had reviewed the pest control service. It found that there were reports from 23 May 2023 onwards. Its contractors had completed proofing works to the communal stack pipe on 26 September 2023 which had allowed mice to enter the building.
4. It summarised a history of repairs to the heating system. Heating contractors were planned to attend on 28 September 2023. It determined that it could have progressed the repairs quicker.
5. It offered £400 compensation. This was comprised of:
  1. £50 for complaint handling failures.
  2. £100 for time and trouble.
  3. £100 for delays to complete repairs.
  4. £150 for distress and inconvenience.
The resident sought to escalate her complaint on 1 October 2023. She disagreed with the landlord’s summary of events. She felt the offer of compensation did not reflect the distress and inconvenience caused.
The resident emailed the landlord 3 times between 6 and 14 October 2023. She reported continued issues with heating and hot water. She said she was frequently chasing the contractor, who made appointments but did not attend. She was unwell from stress and anxiety. Her son became ill with breathing difficulties. Her home was cold. She was upset with the amount of time taken off work for failed appointments. She had no response to her emails from the landlord.
On 9 November 2023 the resident said that she was waiting for the contractor to repair holes in the kitchen. She had not received any compensation. The boiler had been repaired, but she had been without heating and hot water for 15 days. She sent further emails on 16 and 20 November 2023 saying she had received no response from the landlord and was still waiting for the holes to be repaired.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 14 December 2023. It said:
1. External proofing works were completed on 26 September 2023 to prevent mice getting into the property. It agreed that these were not conducted as soon as they should have been.
2. Internal proofing works (including the blocking of holes) were conducted on 27 November 2023 to prevent mice from entering the property.
3. The boiler was inspected on 28 September 2023 and replaced on 18 October 2023.
4. There had been a failure to follow through with the promises it made in relation to its complaint handling.
5. It offered £650 compensation. This replaced its previous offer at stage 1 and reflected the additional delays to conduct the proofing works and time the resident was without heating or hot water. This comprised of:
  1. £100 for complaint handling failures.
  2. £100 for time and trouble.
  3. £250 for delays.
  4. £200 for distress and inconvenience.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident said that she has been reporting problems with damp and mould since 2020. In this investigation, the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s handling of these reports in line with its responses from May 2023 to December 2023. This is based on the evidence available to the Service for investigation and the period which the landlord has considered in its complaint handling.
While this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.

Policy and procedures

The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will direct all reports to its ASB team. It will interview the person reporting ASB and create an ASB case recording agreed actions, risk assessment, and review frequency. It will gather evidence and interview the alleged perpetrator.
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out timescales to conduct repairs. It prioritises repairs in the following categories:
1. Emergency repairs. Attended within 4 hours and made safe in 24 hours. Emergencies include complete loss of heating. Follow on works will be completed as a routine repair by appointment.
2. Routine repairs. Conducted within 20 working days. These include any responsive repairs that are not emergencies.
The landlord’s pest control procedure says that its contractor will treat pests or the associated risks appropriately. Where there are access points which pests have used, the contractor should block them and prevent further entry. It will contact the resident within 7 working days of the target completion date to confirm if the treatment has been successful.
The landlord’s compensation procedure sets out when it will pay compensation and the amounts it will consider dependent on the impact on the resident. For delays, distress, and inconvenience, it pays compensation of £100 for low impact, £250 for medium impact, and £500 for major impacts. It will pay up to £50 for time and trouble. It also considers payments for missed appointments for repairs at £15 per missed appointment (after the first).

Repairs to the heating and hot water system

The landlord’s records show that the resident reported issues with the boiler from 11 May 2023. The landlord broadly complied with the timescales set out in its repairs and maintenance policy after each report. The records show that it appropriately treated the reports as emergency repairs. Many of the appointments were conducted out of hours.
There were intermittent faults with the system which resulted in around 9 repair appointments between 11 May and 28 September 2023. The resident frequently told the landlord that she believed the boiler needed replacement. She said that operatives told her that the boiler was beyond serviceable repair. The resident highlighted the impact the delays had on her family and she took considerable time and trouble contacting the landlord throughout the timeline.
In its stage 1 response on 15 June 2023 the landlord recognised that there had been delays repairing the boiler. It was appropriate for it to apologise for the delay. Its offer of £150 compensation was made in accordance with its policy and procedures. It was reasonable to rely on the advice of its specialist contractor. It was clear with the resident on the reasons why it would repair the boiler, rather than replace the system. This was good practice as it demonstrated openness/transparency.
Despite the repairs, the issues continued in July 2023. The resident became increasingly frustrated by the frequent repairs. The landlord’s records show that the contractor repaired the boiler 6 times in August 2023. In its stage 2 response on 23 August 2023, the landlord reflected on the delays. It was appropriate for it to apologise for the impact the issues had and for its poor communication. However, its offer of £300 compensation did not reflect the detriment the issues caused at the time. There was also a missed opportunity to survey the heating system or conduct a more detailed inspection to identify the cause of the repeated breakdowns.
The landlord recognised its failings in its stage 1 response on 27 September 2023. It appropriately arranged an inspection of the boiler on 28 September 2023. Its apology that it did not progress the repairs sooner was reasonable. Its offer of £100 for time and trouble was reflective of its compensation policy. However, its offer of £250 compensation for distress and inconvenience and delays was not reasonable. This is because, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it did not reflect the detriment caused to the resident.
It was reasonable for the landlord to replace the boiler on 18 October 2023. However, there was a continued failure to effectively communicate with the resident in October and November 2023. The resident emailed 5 times in this period without a response from the landlord. She highlighted the impact on her and her son’s health from the excess cold and failed appointments.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response on 14 December 2023,it appropriately apologised for the delays to conduct the repairs. It was reasonable to acknowledge the impact the issues had on the resident. It was fair to reflect on its failure to maintain the commitments set out in its complaint handling. It was appropriate to review its offer of compensation. Its offer reflected a medium impact for delays, distress, and inconvenience. Its offer of £100 for time and trouble was at the maximum provided for in its compensation policy which was appropriate.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the heating and hot water system. There were some delays to conduct repairs and missed appointments in the timeline. The landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident or respond to many of her emails. Its offers of compensation early in the timeline did not reflect the impact the issues had on the resident. There were missed opportunities to inspect the heating system sooner. It was not proactive in its approach to the repairs. However, throughout its complaint responses the landlord offered a total of £950 compensation. Although it was not always clear what proportion of the payments offered related to repairs, they were made in accordance with its compensation policy. The combined offer is equivalent to the level of compensation set out in the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies for maladministration. Its apology for the impact the issues had in each of its responses was reasonable. Its attempts to resolve the repairs each time was appropriate.

Reports of pests in the property

Landlords are obliged to make sure that their properties are fit for human habitation, which includes eliminating household pests. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 imposes a duty on landlords to deal with disrepair. Legislation requires landlords to take action to deal with infestations and disrepair problems that are causing infestations. The records show that the resident reported issues with rodents in the property between May 2023 and November 2023. Therefore, the landlord had a responsibility to conduct inspections and investigate any issues that would allow rodents to enter the property.
The landlord responded to the initial reports made by the resident. It arranged for specialist pest control services to treat the issues present. It was appropriate for the landlord to rely on the advice provided by its specialist contractors. However, the resident raised the issues with mice in the property in her initial complaint on 30 May 2023. The landlord missed an opportunity to resolve this issue in its stage 1 response on 13 June 2023. There was a further missed opportunity to reflect on its handling of pest control issues when it issued its stage 2 response on 23 August 2023. The landlord failed to use its complaint handling as an effective tool to resolve the substantive issues for the resident. The resident was consequently caused additional time and trouble making further complaints about this issue.
Between May and September 2023, the resident asked for updates 4 times without a response. The landlord should have responded to the resident’s concerns. The resident frequently told the landlord that the presence of mice was causing her distress. The landlord did not provide any update regarding the mice issues until it issued its stage 1 response on 27 September 2023. The resident took considerable time and trouble chasing the landlord for updates. Its poor communication contributed to the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
In its stage 1 response on 27 September 2023 the landlord said that repairs were conducted to the communal stack pipe. It is not clear from the landlord’s records when it first became aware of the communal stack pipe issues that allowed mice to enter the block. Its internal records show that it discussed the repairs on 3 August 2023. The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of inspections and investigations. Good record keeping is essential to evidence the action the landlord has taken which then aids in its service delivery, enabling it to respond professionally when something goes wrong. In this case it would have ensured that there were clear reasons for its decision making, that could have been shared with the resident.
The landlord’s offer of compensation on 26 September 2023 included its poor handling of pest control issues. Although it was reasonable to make an offer of compensation, it was not clear what proportion related to the pest control issues.
The landlord’s second stage 2 response on 14 December 2023 provided a more detailed reflection on its handling of pest control services. It was fair to say that it did not conduct the proofing works inside the property when it should have. It was reasonable to recognise that the compensation offered at stage 1 did not reflect the detriment caused. The internal proofing works were complete on 27 November 2023. This was around 2 months after the external proofing works were resolved. The delay to resolve these issues spanned around 6 months in total between May and November 2023. The resident had highlighted the impact the issues had on her and her family. The landlord recognised that there was substantial delay to resolve the issues. It was appropriate to increase its offer of compensation for the delays in completing the proofing works. Although it was unclear what proportion of the compensation offered related to this issue, the offer was made in accordance with its compensation policy.
The Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of reports of pests in the property. There were delays in responding to the resident in the timeline. The resident said she experienced distress and inconvenience caused by the presence of mice in the property. She said that there has been a lasting impact as a result. The landlord failed to address the issues in its initial complaint responses. However, the landlord’s second stage 1 and 2 responses reflected on its handling of pest control issues. It was fair to apologise for the impact the delays had on the resident. It provided appropriate pest control services and resolved the issues allowing mice into the property. Its offer of compensation was made in accordance with its policy and procedures. It recognised the additional time and trouble taken by the resident and the distress and inconvenience caused.

Reports of ASB

The records show the resident first raised issues with ASB from her neighbours on 19 May 2023. There are no records showing that the landlord conducted any investigation into these reports. On receipt of the report the landlord should have referred the issue to its ASB team. It should have interviewed the resident and completed a risk assessment and action plan. The landlord missed an opportunity to review the resident’s reports in its stage 1 response on 15 June 2023. The resident was caused additional time and trouble as a result. She eventually sought help from her councillor on 19 July 2023 and raised further issues with smells from the neighbour’s property.
The landlord did not provide any response to the resident’s reports of ASB until it issued its stage 1 response on 27 September 2023. There was a delay of around 5 months to acknowledge any of the ASB reported. However, it did confirm that it had issued a warning notice to the neighbour and was appropriate to direct the resident to its ASB team for further incidents. The landlord should have directed the resident to its ASB team sooner, and/or set out how she could report incidents and how it would investigate.
The landlord did not recognise the delay to acknowledge the ASB in its stage 1 response on 27 September 2023. It did not use its stage 2 response on 14 December 2023 to review its handling of reports of ASB. It did not treat the resident fairly, put things right, or learn from outcomes. This was unsatisfactory.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB. It did not communicate effectively. There were long periods without a response. It did not conduct any formal interview early in the timeline and did not use its complaint handling to resolve the substantive issues. It should pay the resident £100 for her time and trouble and £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Reports of damp and mould

The resident raised issues with damp and mould in her initial complaint in May 2023. In its stage 1 response the landlord arranged for a mould wash to be done in the property. There is no evidence available to the Ombudsman that this issue was raised again at a later stage.
The Ombudsman finds no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of damp and mould. The resident raised the issues to the landlord and it promptly arranged appropriate repairs. Its actions were reasonable and conducted in accordance with its repairs and maintenance policy.

The maintenance of communal areas

The resident first reported issues with smells in the communal areas and a lack of cleaning in May 2023. The landlord unfairly overlooked this issue in its stage 1 response on 15 June 2023. It should have conducted some investigation into her concerns and set out how it would resolve the issues. Its failure to address her concerns meant that she took additional time and trouble raising the issues with the condition of the communal areas again in August 2023.
The resident’s reports in August 2023 included concerns that residents were misusing the communal bin area and rats were seen. She took additional time and trouble seeking help from Environmental Health and her councillor. The landlord appropriately organised pest control services on 7 August 2023 but it did not provide this information to the resident. The landlord also acknowledged her complaints about the condition of the communal areas on 24 August 2023. However, it did not provide her with any detail regarding its actions and she took more time and trouble making further enquiries in September 2023.
Although it was reasonable to conduct a deep clean of the communal carpets, it is unclear from the landlord’s records when this happened. The landlord could have communicated these intentions to the resident which may have allayed some of her concerns. Also, once the cleaning had been done the resident reported damage done by her neighbour. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s reports. It did not treat the resident fairly and its poor communication caused additional time and trouble for the resident.
The landlord’s stage 1 response on 27 September 2023 addressed the issues of residents allowing their dogs to toilet in the communal area. It appropriately wrote to other residents about the misuse of the communal areas for this issue. However, it was dismissive of the resident’s concerns about the misuse of the communal bin store. The landlord said that there was nothing that it could do about other residents misusing the communal areas. It failed to recognise the impact the issues had on the resident. Although we cannot dictate how a landlord manages its resources, it was responsible for the maintenance of the communal areas around the block. Its estate management policy states that it conducts quarterly inspections of the low-rise blocks. It could have provided details of its schedule to the resident. It could have provided notices about the proper use of the communal bins and potentially considered other security measures.
The Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the maintenance of communal areas. It took some action within a reasonable period to resolve the resident’s concerns. It was appropriate to write to residents about some of the misuse of communal areas. It was reasonable to conduct a deep clean of the communal carpets. However, its communication with the resident was poor. It did not provide responses to many of her reports in May and August 2023. It did not acknowledge the issues in its initial stage 1 or 2 responses. The resident was caused additional time and trouble reporting issues and making complaints as a result. The landlord should pay the resident £100 compensation for her time and trouble. If the issue is ongoing it should write to residents regarding the misuse of the communal bin area.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. An offer of reasonable redress made in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs to the heating and hot water system.
2. An offer of reasonable redress made in respect of the landlord’s handling of reports of pests in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
3. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the maintenance of communal areas.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £300. This is comprised of:
  1. £100 for time and trouble caused in its handling of reports of ASB.
  2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused in its handling of reports of ASB.
  3. £100 for time and trouble caused in its handling of the maintenance of communal areas.
3. Provide evidence of compliance with the above to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

If it has not already been paid, the landlord should re-offer the compensation for heating/hot water repairs and pest control issues in its complaint responses from 23 August 2023 and 14 December 2023. This should be made in addition to the £300 ordered above.
If the issue is ongoing, the landlord should write to residents in the block regarding the improper use of the communal bin area. It should ensure that residents are aware of the issues caused by poor waste management.