Hyde Housing Association Limited (202327953)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327953

Hyde Housing Association Limited

10 September 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of a leak and the associated remedial repairs.
    2. Request for compensation for damaged personal possessions.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has occupied the property, a 4-bedroom, 3-storey house, on an assured periodic tenancy since 2003. She lives there with her 3 children.
  2. On 15 November 2022, the resident reported a leak through the ceiling. A contractor attended the following day and recorded that there was a leak from the hot water cylinder in the hall cupboard which had been ongoing for some time, and a valve needed replacing. There is no evidence of anyone attending again or a repair being carried out until a further job was created on 5 December 2022.
  3. A contractor attended on 6 December 2022, when it was found that cracked shower tiles were the cause of the leak, but no further action was taken. The resident reported the leak again on 15 December 2022 and a contractor attended on 22 December 2022, again noting that the cracked shower tiles may be the cause and suggesting they be removed. It was noted the issue was not with the boiler, but a pipe needed checking. However, there is no record of any such works being carried out.
  4. The resident chased the landlord about the ceiling on 28 December 2022 and then reported that the ground floor ceiling had collapsed on 4 January 2023. She was decanted to a hotel that day and a contractor attended the following day, made the ceiling safe, and noted repairs were needed.
  5. A job was created on 11 January 2023 to identify the leak. Although a contractor attended on 13 January 2023 and indicated on the job sheet a repair had been done, it is not known what action, if any, was taken to repair the leak or what the cause of the leak was.
  6. The resident’s MP contacted the landlord on 18 January 2023, about the resident’s concerns about the time things were taking, and asked it to look in to it.
  7. The resident complained to the landlord on 1 February 2023 about being decanted to a hotel and having been incorrectly told on several occasions she could move home. She said on 3 occasions contractors had failed to attend and she had taken time off work and made many calls, just to find out what was happening with the repairs.
  8. On 3 and 4 February 2023, contractors attended to carry out repairs to the ceiling and take apart the shower enclosure. The resident returned to the property on 6 February 2023.
  9. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 20 February 2023 and apologised that she had had to repeatedly chase up the works. It said the complaint was that as a result of the lounge ceiling collapsing, she had been in a hotel for over a month and when she returned home her son’s bedroom floor was damaged, and no painting or decorating had been done. It said it would aim to respond by 7 February 2023 (although it meant 7 March 2023).
  10. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 7 March 2023 it upheld the complaint, said appointments had been arranged to complete the outstanding works, and offered £400 compensation (£50 for the delay in acknowledging the complaint; £50 for the poor communication, time and trouble; £150 for delays completing the repairs; and £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused).
  11. The resident reported a further leak on 9 March 2023 which was attended to the following day and it was noted that in the bathroom the float valve was constantly dripping and a nut needed tightening to stop the leak.
  12. The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 March 2023 and increased the offer of compensation to £600. This increased the awards for distress and inconvenience and repair delays by £100 each.
  13. The resident told the landlord the following day that she had incurred additional expenses including: £550 of food in her fridge and freezer (due to her power being off for so long; £1,000 for a ruined sofa; £150 on paint; and £88 on wallpaper.
  14. On 22 March 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident explaining that it would not be increasing its compensation offer and that she would need to claim for losses through her home insurance, or its insurer if she did not have insurance.
  15. On 29 March 2023, the resident told the landlord there were further repairs needed, and sent in photos which show amongst other things, a ceiling that needed to be repainted. It said the compensation offered did not cover her losses. It responded on 31 March 2023 and said the original complaint was regarding the repair to the living room ceiling and the fact that after coming home the repair was not completed. The ceiling had been repaired and the contractors were in contact to arrange any follow on appointments. All the additional repairs now raised were not part of the original complaint.
  16. On 24 April 2023, the landlord advised the resident that the ceiling repairs would take place on 28 April 2023. However, the resident chased the landlord about this on 12 May 2023. The landlord’s records say a ceiling patch repair took place on 17 June 2023.
  17. The resident has said the repair works were not fully completed until April 2024. The landlord’s records show that she did report an issue with the shower hose in April 2024, but this was not related to the original complaint.

Assessment and findings

Reports of a leak and the associated remedial repairs

  1. According to the landlord’s Responsive Repairs Operational procedure, it was responsible for repairing leaks and obliged to deal with an emergency repair within 4 hours and make it safe within 24 hours. An anytime repair should be carried out within 20 working days. In this case, someone attended the day after the resident initially reported a leak; therefore, it was not treated as an emergency. This was not unreasonable in the circumstances, as it appears to have been a longstanding leak. The fact the landlord arranged for someone to attend the next day shows it responded within a reasonable period.
  2. The landlord initially acted promptly and it was that noted a valve needed replacing, but there is no evidence of that work then being carried out. The resident continued to report the leak and there were difficulties identifying its source, despite pipework, the boiler, and shower being checked. The landlord’s records are not clear whether the source of the leak was ultimately determined and make no mention of any repairs actually taking place.
  3. The resident should not have needed to continually raise the leak for action to have been taken. Instead, the landlord should have ensured the job remained open and was actively monitored until it had been completed. The leak worsened and ultimately caused the ceiling to collapse, leaving the resident and her family in a crisis situation which may have been avoided if the landlord had adopted a more proactive approach.
  4. The resident complained that the landlord missed 3 appointments. In the event an appointment is missed, the landlord does not have to pay compensation for the first appointment, but it should pay £15 for each subsequent one missed. However, no evidence of the missed appointments has been provided by either party so there is insufficient information to warrant the payment of compensation in that regard.
  5. The landlord’s Decant and Home Loss and Disturbance Payments procedure (decant procedure) says a decant will occur if, amongst other things, gas, electricity or water will not be available for a prolonged period of time. When the ceiling collapsed, the water was turned off so it was appropriate for the resident and her family to be decanted. She was offered hotel accommodation, which the decant procedure says would usually only be considered if a decant is likely to be less than 14 days, and this was accepted.
  6. It is clear the repairs took longer than expected, which is why the resident’s hotel stay had to be extended. The evidence shows that, while at the hotel, the resident did complain to both her MP and the landlord about the time things were taking, and the landlord has accepted she had to chase on a number of occasions, to find out what was happening, which was unacceptable.
  7. The resident and her family were clearly going through a very stressful and difficult time, which was made worse by the landlord not communicating well with her about when she could return to the property. There is reference in internal landlord emails to the resident potentially being able to move back in, but then having her stay in the hotel extended as the repair work was not complete.
  8. Then, when she was told she could return to the property, photographs showed that the repairs had not been completed, so the resident suffered more inconvenience having work done while living in the property. Although the resident says the landlord was still doing work this year, the evidence indicates that all work was completed around June 2023, some 7 months after the leak was first reported.
  9. The decant procedure says timescales for works should be in keeping with the turnaround times for normal void works, that being a maximum of 10 working days for routine decant works; and a maximum of 20 working days for major decant works. It is clear that repairs and redecoration were ongoing much longer than that. Therefore, the landlord failed to adhere to the timescales set out in its decant procedure.
  10. The evidence demonstrates that the landlord failed to identify and repair the leak initially, took too long to then complete the necessary repairs (both whilst the resident was decanted and once she had returned to the property), and failed to communicate effectively with her throughout the repairs process. As a result, it was appropriate for the landlord to recognise these failings through the operation of its complaints process, and to make an award of financial redress.
  11. The landlord’s Compensation procedure says it ought to consider paying compensation for time and trouble and distress and inconvenience. For time and trouble, compensation would be a maximum of £50. For both delay and distress and inconvenience, if there was low impact, compensation of up to £100 would be considered; for medium impact, £250 compensation and major impact, £500.
  12. As a result, this Service considers that the £550 compensation offered by the landlord in respect of the leak repairs was in line with its Compensation procedure. While the Ombudsman is not required to adhere to that guidance when considering what is fair and reasonable, we are satisfied that it was an appropriate amount in the circumstances.
  13. From the time the resident first reported the leak, to when all repairs were ultimately completed, it was several months. Over that period, the resident had to chase the landlord on a number of occasions and lived in difficult conditions because the repairs were not carried out promptly. However, it is equally important to recognise that the landlord acted quickly when the ceiling collapsed and arranged alternative accommodation. It has also acknowledged that there have been failings and sought to address them in its complaint responses.
  14. This Service’s guidance on remedies suggests that, where there has been a failure which adversely affected a resident but not long term or permanently and the landlord has made some attempt to put things right, compensation of up to £600 is reasonable. In this case, aside from the £50 offered for delaying dealing with the complaint, the landlord has offered to pay £550 compensation, which is deemed to provide reasonable redress.

Request for compensation for damaged personal possessions

  1. The resident has said that, as a result of the leak, her sofa was damaged and she lost food in her fridge and freezer. When she raised this with the landlord, it correctly explained that she would need to make a claim on her home insurance. However, if she did not have home insurance, she could submit her claim to its insurer, and it provided her with the details of how to do that. The resident has confirmed this is not something she went on to do.
  2. It is accepted that the resident has been through a difficult time, and had a lot to deal with, but when it comes to claiming for possessions damaged as a result of a leak, the landlord was right to direct her to claiming on either her own or its insurance. It was, of course, the resident’s choice to decide whether to do that, but by choosing not to make a claim, does not then mean the landlord must compensate her directly. Therefore, there was no maladministration.
  3. It is not possible for the Ombudsman to advise the resident on making an insurance claim now, and it may be that due to the time that has passed, a claim may not be possible. However, if the resident has evidence of her losses and wants to pursue the matter further, she would need to liaise directly with the relevant insurer, to see if it would accept a claim at this stage.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s Complaints procedure says it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. A stage 1 response will be issued within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days after it was requested. However, in this case it took 13 working days for the landlord to acknowledge the complaint and 24 working days to issue its stage 1 response, which means it failed to comply with its obligations.
  2. The landlord’s Complaints and Compensation Policy Statement in place at the time said that its stage 2 response was also known as a senior manager review. In its 7 March 2023 response, the landlord told the resident that if she remained unhappy at stage 1, the complaint would be reviewed by a senior manager at Stage 2 which was correct. However, when the resident made it clear she was unhappy, the landlord issued a “compensation review” letter 5 working days later, and increased the compensation offer. Although the review was carried out by a team leader, the letter reiterated that the resident could again choose to escalate the complaint to stage 2 if she wanted to and a senior manager would consider the case.
  3. The landlord’s approach here was confusing. It introduced a review level between stages 1 and 2 that it did not make the resident aware of. Then, in its review response of 14 March 2023, the team leader said the complaint would be looked at by a senior manager at stage 2 if she remained unhappy. However, when the resident made it clear she did remain unhappy, the same team leader issued a further response on 22 March 2023 and did not say whether it constituted a stage 2 response. However, the letter stated that the resident had reached the end of the complaints process so this appears to have been considered to be a stage 2 response.
  4. The evidence shows that the landlord did not comply with its Complaints procedure in terms of timeliness. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord accepted a shortfall in its service at stage 1 and its offer of £50 compensation was in line with its Compensation guidance as the delay was minor and there was low impact.
  5. There was still a deficiency in the landlord’s complaints process, by not adhering to its procedure, but there was no detriment caused to the resident by the landlord conducting a review of the compensation offered, as this was done quickly and resulted in an increased offer. The landlord should have been clearer with the resident with it issued its compensation review, if the same person was going to consider the complaint at stage 2, and its response should have also made it clear it was its reply at stage 2.
  6. Having said that, even if the landlord had been clearer in its communication, it would not have altered the overall outcome. It did ultimately review its stage 1 response and increased its compensation offer, and made it clear to the resident when she could refer the complaint to this Service.
  7. Overall the shortfall in the landlord’s complaint handling amounts to a service failure with moderate impact on the resident. As its service fell short in more ways than just causing a delay in responding, the compensation offered of £50 is increased to £100.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of reports of a leak and the associated remedial repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation for damaged personal possessions.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay £100 to recognise its failures in its complaint handling (inclusive of the £50 offered during its complaints process).
    3. Ensure a process is in place to accurately record what work takes place on jobs and ensure live jobs are actively monitored so ongoing issues are identified and actioned promptly.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord is recommended to:
    1. Pay the resident the £550 offered during its complaints process, if it has not already done so, for its handling of reports of a leak and the associated remedial repairs. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident.
    2. Review its complaint correspondence templates to ensure they are in line with its Complaint procedure and each letter makes it clear what stage the complaint is at.