Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Hyde Housing Association Limited (202417483)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202417483

Hyde Housing Association Limited

29 January 2025


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:
    1. Repairs to the communal lift.
    2. The resident’s report of repairs within her property.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord for a flat on the fourth floor of a medium rise building.
  2. The resident reported issues with her balcony door on 26 January 2024 which the landlord repaired on 27 March. She reported a draughty bedroom window on 26 February which the landlord repaired on 28 February. The resident reported a panel on her front door was boarded instead of glazed on 18 June.
  3. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 15 July 2024. She said the communal lift was breaking down at least once a week and she was physically unable to walk four floors to and from her property. She said this was causing her stress and anxiety. The resident also reported new repair issues regarding her bathroom extractor fan, draughty bedroom windows and balcony door. She reraised the issue regarding the panel in her front door.
  4. The landlord replied to the resident’s complaint on 18 July 2024. It acknowledged the further repair issues and confirmed it would complete all outstanding repairs in the property by 24 July. It offered £150 compensation for the delay in completing the repairs. The landlord said modernisation of the lift was scheduled to start that year.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 20 July. She said when the lift was out of order she was unable to return home for hours and sometimes overnight due to her health. She wanted her complaint to remain open until the landlord had completed all repairs.
  6. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 19 September 2024. It acknowledged it had not completed all repairs in the property when it should have. It increased its compensation to £300. It confirmed it would repair the draughty window by 27 September and the balcony door by 22 November.
  7. The landlord confirmed to the Ombudsman it repaired the balcony door on 11 November 2024, the extractor fan on 15 August 2024 and the draughty windows on 28 November 2024. It confirmed it would repair the front door panel on 31 December 2024. On 14 January 2025 the resident told the Ombudsman the lift had been refurbished but new issues with it had arisen. She said her balcony door had been fixed but all other repairs remained outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Scope of assessment.

  1. On 7 October 2024, the resident raised issues relating to her bathroom floor. This was after the completion of the landlord’s complaints process on 19 September. In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme the Ombudsman will not consider complaints made before exhausting a landlord’s complaints procedure. As such the landlord needs the opportunity to investigate these further matters. If the resident remains dissatisfied following the landlord’s responses to her new complaint she has the option of asking the Ombudsman to investigate her concerns.

The communal lift.

  1. The landlord’s stage 1 response of 18 July 2024 said it would modernise the lift by the end of the year. This was appropriate in managing the resident’s expectations in the long term. Its explanation that a section 20 consultation for leaseholders was required was also appropriate in explaining the time taken, given that some of the residents were leaseholders and would be obliged to pay a share of the costs.
  2. There was a gap of two months between the landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaint response. However, the landlord did not provide a further update on the modernisation of the lift in its stage 2 response. As such it failed to appropriately manage the resident’s expectations on when the refurbishment would take place. There is no other evidence of it explaining this outside of its complaint response.
  3. No evidence has been provided to the Ombudsman about occasions in which the lift has broken down. The landlord also failed to explain its history of repairing the lift in its complaint responses. As such this investigation is unable to assess the landlord’s management of reports of the communal lift breaking down.
  4. The resident explained the impact the lift breakdowns were having on her health in her initial and escalated complaint. She stated on each occasion she was unable to access or leave her property when the lift broke down. This was due to her inability to walk four flights of stairs due to her health.
  5. The landlord failed to acknowledge the impact on the resident’s health in either of its complaint responses. Its lift management plan confirms when a lift is unavailable for more than 4 hours it will highlight vulnerable residents on its system. It will then plan assistance and may implement safeguarding provisions. This can include well-being and progress calls and potentially decanting the resident.
  6. The landlord had the opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations in its complaint responses. It could have described how it could support the resident with her health in line with its lift management plan. It failed to do this in both complaint responses. This left the resident uncertain about how she would be supported with further lift breakdowns before the refurbishment took place.
  7. The landlord’s vulnerability policy confirms it will have open communication with residents to allow them to inform it about vulnerabilities. It has various offers of support and will record details of vulnerabilities in its system. The Ombudsman asked the landlord for details of any vulnerabilities held for the resident. Its reply was “n/a.”
  8. This suggests the landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. As such it was unable to determine in line with its policy if the resident needed further support. This affected its ability to explain the ongoing supportive action it would take in its complaint responses. This was a failure to manage the resident’s expectations and fully support her in line with its policy. It failed to listen to the prompts from the resident about her health in each of her complaints and did not alter its approach.
  9. In summary the landlord’s stage 1 response appropriately managed the resident’s concerns long-term concerns about the lift. However, it failed to follow this up in its stage 2 response, leaving the resident uncertain on how this was proceeding. At no point did the landlord consider the resident’s health. It failed to appropriately record her health issues in line with its vulnerability policy. This meant it could not appropriately support the resident in line with its lift management plan.

Repairs within the property.

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy prioritises repairs under two categories. These are emergency repairs and “anytime” (routine) repairs. It will complete anytime repairs within 20 working days. These are any repairs that are not an emergency.
  2. In its first complaint response in July 2024 the landlord told the resident the front door panel would be repaired by 24 July. The resident chased the repair on 31 October. Eventually, on 30 November the landlord ordered the glass required to repair the panel and arranged an appointment to install this on 31 December. No evidence has been provided of completion, and the resident explained the matter is still unresolved at the time of this report. While the landlord had applied an interim repair by boarding up the panel, the overall repair far exceeded the 20-working day timescale in the landlord’s policy, and nothing in the evidence shows the landlord updated the resident on its progress or explained why the delay was occurring. Its handling of this particular repair was therefore not reasonable.
  3. The landlord previously completed repairs to the window on 28 February and to the balcony door on 27 March. There is no evidence of further reports between these dates and the resident reporting issues with each again on 15 July 2024 in her complaint. The landlord attempted to complete repairs to the balcony door and bedroom window by 24 July 2024 as its stage 1 complaint response confirmed. However, it confirmed further work was needed to repair each.
  4. Its stage 2 response of 19 September 2024 it confirmed a new balcony door was being manufactured and it would install this by 22 November. This effectively managed the resident’s expectations, explaining the delay the manufacturing had on completing the repair. It also confirmed the draughty window would be completed by 27 September.
  5. The landlord completed the installation of the new balcony door ahead of its timescale on 11 October 2024. It found no issue with the window on 27 September but reattended on 11 October and 28 November and completed repairs to the window. Both repairs overall exceeded the timescale in its policy, however there is sufficient evidence it was appropriately managing each repair.
  6. The landlord offered compensation and an apology in its stage 1 complaint response. It said this was for the delays to repairs at the resident’s home. It is unclear why the landlord offered this as this point the only outstanding repair was the panels in the front door.  The landlord increased its compensation offer to £300 and apologised for the further delays in its stage 2 response. This was appropriate and in accordance with its compensation policy for the delays in completing the balcony door, bedroom window and front door panel repairs up to that point, but did not include compensation for the subsequent delay with the front door panel.
  7. The resident has explained in January 2025 that some of the repair issues remain unresolved. As the landlord has provided evidence of completing all the issues in the complaint apart from the front door panel, the resident’s concerns should be treated as new and addressed by the landlord as needed.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal lift.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs inside her property.

Orders

  1. In light of the failings found in this report the landlord must pay the resident compensation of £700 withing 4 weeks of this report. This amount includes the compensation it previously offered and is comprised of:
    1. £300 for its poor consideration of the impact of the lift repairs on the resident.
    2. £100 for the further delays resolving the front door panel repair.
    3. £300 that it previously offered as part of its final complaint response.
  2. Within 6 weeks the landlord must review the vulnerability information it holds for the resident. It should discuss this with the resident to clarify which information she wishes to disclose.
  3. Also within 6 weeks, the landlord must confirm to the Ombudsman and the resident that the door panel repair is complete (and when that was done). If it is not yet complete the landlord must give the resident a deadline by which it intends to complete the work.
  4. Evidence of compliance with these orders must be provided to the Ombudsman by their respective deadlines.