Hyde Housing Association Limited (202218277)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218277

Hyde Housing Association Limited

28 June 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 the resident’s:
1. Various repairs.
2. Request to have gas central heating installed.
3. Formal complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the assured shorthold tenant of the property, which is a 1 bedroom, first floor, flat within a converted house. The landlord is a housing association.
The landlord has told the Ombudsman it had no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. The resident has dyslexia, and other medical conditions. He has been assisted in bringing his complaint to the landlord, and to this Service, by his friend acting as a representative.
The tenancy agreement sets out the landlord’s repairs responsibilities, which are in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It is responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the property, fixtures and fittings for the supply of electricity, water, gas, water and space heating. The tenancy agreement says it will carry out repairs within a reasonable time. Under its repairs policy it will categorise and respond to repairs as either emergency (attend within 4 hours and make safe) or non-emergency (repair within 20 working days).
The landlord’s complaints policy, in use at the time, defined a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction about a service provided by any part or representative of it”. It will accept complaints made by elected officials or a representative of the resident with their consent. It operates a 2 stage complaints process. It will contact the resident to discuss a stage 1 complaint within 2 working days and respond within 20 working days. It will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time sets out how a landlord should respond to complaints. Under paragraph 5.1 a landlord should respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days. If it needs a further 10 working days in exceptional circumstances, it must contact the resident to explain this. Any further delay beyond this must be agreed with the resident. It should escalate the complaint if asked to do so by the resident (paragraph 5.10) and should respond within 20 working days (paragraph 5.13). The Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s current complaints policy complies with these timeframes.
The landlord has told this Service that it does not have a planned upgrade or improvements policy.

Summary of events

On 28 September 2022 the resident’s representative emailed the local councillor to ask for help. She said the councillor had helped the resident previously with repairs and that he still had a leak coming through the ceiling, a cracked front door, and problems with his heating.
The councillor emailed the landlord on 4 October 2022 and said the repairs were first reported in 2021. She asked it to look into these as a matter of urgency. It replied on 7 October 2022 and set out the repairs history. It said it had made appointments to check the roof for a leak on 11 October 2022 and for 20 October 2022 to repair the front door and a previously bricked up window (marked completed in its records). It also said it would book to check the electric heating was working and to attend to various plumbing repairs.
On 11 November 2022 the landlord, in an internal email, said it had previously inspected and had asked to raise repairs in January 2022. It inspected on 14 November 2022 and noted its findings in an internal email. This included all the repairs required, as well as needing to cut back an overgrown tree, and noted that prior to the COVID-19 lockdown it had advised the resident to have a gas meter installed so that central heating could be installed, but this had not been done.
The resident’s representative emailed the councillor on 15 November 2022 and copied in the landlord. Her email included a report on the landlord’s inspection and her list of numerous outstanding repairs and issues. She also said the repairs previously booked had been cancelled without explanation.
On 23 November 2022 the resident’s representative emailed the landlord and referred to her previous email which she said was about a very serious complaint. She said it had not completed repairs satisfactorily for 6 years, that there was a leak from the ceiling, poor quality heating, mould in several rooms and structural issues. She said the repairs had not been done and she had not received a response after her last email.
In internal emails on the same day the landlord asked about its progress in completing repairs. It set out the repairs appointments it had raised for plumbing jobs, brickwork repointing, insulating and decoration around the former window, extractor fan overhaul, and mould washes in December 2022. It was also waiting for a scaffolding licence before it could book in the roofing works.
The resident’s representative contacted this Service and on 29 November 2022 the Ombudsman emailed the landlord to ask it to provide a stage 1 response. It replied the following day and said it had responded to a councillor enquiry in October 2022, and raised a complaint following the representative’s email it said it received on 25 November 2022. It acknowledged the complaint on 5 December 2022 and said:
1. The complaint was about the heating system and “the lack of action you feel we have taken in the lead up to outstanding works”.
2. It apologised it had cancelled some outstanding repairs.
3. It had spoken to the resident who had said he had not been using his heating due to the cost of electricity.
4. He wanted to know why the work had been cancelled and when it would be done.
The landlord’s repair records say that it completed the repairs it raised for plumbing, the former window, extractor fan, and mould wash in December 2022. It also raised a job to repair the roof and booked this for 21 March 2023.
On 21 December 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to request an extension of time to provide its stage 1 response. It said it needed more time as it had taken longer than expected for it to get together all the information it needed. It also said it was waiting for more information from its contractors and that it would respond by 11 January 2023. It wrote to him again on 13 January 2023 to request a further extension. Its letter was identical to its previous, except that it explained it was waiting for outstanding works to be confirmed and arranged. It said it would respond by 25 January 2023.
The landlord’s records say it called the resident on 13 January 2023 to discuss the complaint. It said he had confirmed his electric heaters worked but that he did not use them due to the cost of electricity. However, it also noted on 16 January 2023 that the resident had told it the heating was insufficient.
On 27 January 2023 the landlord emailed the resident a third time to request a further extension of time. It said it needed more time to investigate his previous position as part of a grant to change from electric to gas heating. In response, the resident’s representative emailed it and said she was sure after it reviewed its documents it would see why it was better to change from electricity to gas. She also asked for an update on the tree works and roof repairs.
The landlord carried out a survey of the electric heaters on 1 February 2023 and said that they were working. It said in an internal email that the heating was adequate and that there was no grant funding to convert to gas central heating since the COVID-19 pandemic.
On 3 February 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 response in which it:
1. Said the complaint was about the resident’s current heating system.
2. Set out its complaints policy exclusion for matters which occurred more than 6 months prior to a complaint, but then went on to address the complaint.
3. Pointed out that he had not reported any repairs for the heating system.
4. Confirmed it was due to install gas central heating in March 2020 before the COVID-19 pandemic. This was going to be funded by a special scheme, but this was cancelled, and funding ended, following the pandemic. It confirmed there were no other funding schemes it could apply to.
5. Said it had checked his heating system on 1 February 2023 and it was working, did not need repairing or replacing.
6. Concluded there had been no service failure and it did not uphold the complaint.
7. Said how he could escalate the complaint if he remained dissatisfied.
The resident’s representative emailed the landlord on 15 February 2023 and asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process. She set out the reasons the resident remained dissatisfied which included:
1. It had not addressed his complaint about repairs and would like a copy of its surveyor’s report from November 2022.
2. It had not provided any of the information she had requested about how it had assessed the heating system pre COVID-19 or its assessment when it inspected on 1 February 2023.
On 28 February 2023 the resident’s representative emailed the landlord to chase acknowledgement of the escalation request. She emailed it again on 25 March 2023 and said she was still waiting for its stage 2 response. She also reminded it that the resident had installed a gas meter in 2020 at its request in preparation for gas central heating. She emailed it again on 11 April 2023 and 1 May 2023 to chase for a response.
The landlord called the resident on 3 May 2023. Its note says he said the tree works and heating issues were outstanding. On the same day in an internal email it said the tree works were not part of the stage 1 complaint. It then emailed the resident to acknowledge his stage 2 complaint.
The landlord in internal emails discussed outstanding and new repairs between 2 and 10 May 2023. It confirmed it had cut back the trees and would look into further works. It also considered whether it could help with charitable funding to pay to change the heating system but decided that it could not. It said again that the previous funding available for this had been withdrawn after the pandemic.
On 10 May 2023 the resident’s representative emailed the landlord and said the trees had been cut back. She asked it to check the walls and kitchen for damp and to complete other repairs to the property. In an internal email on the same day the landlord said it had failed to acknowledge the stage 2 complaint on time by mistake.
In internal emails the landlord discussed further repairs between 11 and 24 May 2023. It said it had inspected the external wall after the tree had been removed and some repairs were needed. It also said new repairs were needed for other additional issues. It also enquired about whether it could assist with changing to gas central heating. It said it would not normally do this, and it would be contrary to its attempts to decarbonise its housing stock. It said it might be able to upgrade the existing electric heaters, but this would not reduce their cost to run. It also said it could not insulate the walls as the property was of solid construction. The property had loft insulation, but it could consider adding more.
On 19 May 2023 the landlord called the resident and then provided its stage 2 response by email in which it:
1. Said the reason for escalation was that the resident was unhappy with its decision about his heating.
2. Repeated its stage 1 response that there had been no service failing and that funding for the conversion to gas central heating had been withdrawn after the COVID-19 pandemic.
3. Said the repairs issues that he had raised were not part of his stage 1 complaint and so it had not responded at stage 2. However, it included an appendix which addressed these issues.
4. Did not uphold the complaint and said how he could contact this Service if he remained dissatisfied.
The resident’s representative emailed the landlord on 25 May 2023 in response to its stage 2 response. She said it was inadequate and it had failed to include or respond to the complaint about repairs. The resident has told the Ombudsman that the landlord is continuing to carry out new repairs but slowly. He also said he is having an assessment of his home for suitability as he is disabled.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The evidence shows that multiple repairs were raised and completed before, during, and after the resident’s representative made the stage 1 complaint. These repairs have not been included, or have been very briefly referred to, in this report for context only. The investigation has focused solely on repairs which should have been considered within the complaint at the time it was made.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s various repairs

At the date of the resident’s complaint the following repairs were needed:
1. To resolve a leak coming through the ceiling.
2. Cracked front door.
3. Issues with the condition of the wall where the former window was, causing mould.
4. Various plumbing repairs.
5. Mould wash was needed in the bathroom.
6. Trees were overgrowing in the garden.
The landlord inspected the property on 14 November 2022 and noted the outstanding repairs within an internal email. It would have been helpful if it had produced a survey report, as its list is significantly shorter than the resident’s representative’s list from the same visit. It had previously raised repairs for some of these issues but cancelled them without explanation which was a failing.
Regarding the repairs listed, the landlord categorised repairs to items a. to e. as non-emergency, and so should have completed repairs within 20 working days. It is not known what its timeframe for tree works was if it had one at the time, but it did complete these.
It raised repairs appointments for plumbing jobs, brickwork repointing, insulating and decoration around the former window, extractor fan overhaul, and mould washes in December 2022 most of which it completed within 20 working days. It also raised a repair for the roof for 21 March 2023 after it had assessed the works. While roofing repairs require scaffolding, and in this case a licence, the appointment was outside of its policy timeframe and was not within a reasonable time as required by its tenancy agreement. It had also not provided any evidence of the work it carried out which was a further failing.
Although the landlord carried out the repairs, not all of these were within its policy timeframe. It also cancelled repairs appointments without explanation and delayed in completing the roofing work. There was maladministration, which caused inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident. To reflect this an order has been made that the landlord pay £200 compensation to the resident, which is in line with our guidance on remedies.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to have gas central heating installed

The landlord said in internal emails and within its complaint responses that it was its intention to install gas central heating in the property prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. It said there was grant funding to do this, which was then withdrawn after the pandemic. The resident said he had had a gas meter installed at the landlord’s request, which it has not disputed.
Despite having been asked by the resident’s representative, and this Service, the landlord has failed to provide any evidence relating to this. It has not provided evidence for its decision to apply for the funding or its basis for this. It also has not provided any information on where the grant funding was to come from, whether it had been eligible or had this agreed, or any evidence of the funding or scheme being withdrawn which was a failing.
When the resident’s representative raised the issue of poor heating the landlord said it would inspect, which it did on 14 November 2022. It said the resident confirmed the electric heaters were working in January 2023, but that they were insufficient. In response the landlord correctly inspected the heaters on 1 February 2023 and found them to be working correctly. It had complied with its obligations under the tenancy agreement and statute to keep in repair the installation for space heating.
The landlord said that the resident had said he did not use the electric heaters due to the cost of electricity. It stated this within its stage 1 response. After the resident’s representative escalated the complaint, the landlord referred him to its in-house financial support team but decided it could not pay for the conversion to gas central heating which was reasonable. It is not clear whether it investigated any other financial support for the resident with his electricity costs which may have helped him.
The landlord’s decision not to change the electric heating to gas central heating was reasonable. It needed to justify its expenditure and without grant funding it would have likely been an expensive action to have taken. It correctly established that the electric heaters were working and considered whether it could use its charitable funds. However, its communication on the issue has been poor. That the resident, via his representative, was raising the issue in late 2022 demonstrates that the landlord had not clearly informed the resident that the conversion to gas central heating was not going to take place which was a failing. It also failed to provide information when requested as part of the complaint, which may have helped the resident understand and come to terms with its decision.
There was service failure due to the landlord’s poor communication which has caused the resident inconvenience, time and trouble in chasing the issue. To reflect this impact, in line with our guidance on remedies, an order has been made that the landlord pay £100 compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint

The resident’s representative first raised an expression of dissatisfaction on 15 November 2022 in her email to the councillor. Although she copied in the landlord, her email was not addressed to it. While the landlord could have raised a complaint, it did not in anticipation of further contact from the councillor, which was reasonable. When she emailed it directly on 23 November 2022 (which for reasons unknown it said it received on 25 November 2022) it correctly raised a stage 1 complaint but failed to acknowledge this within its policy and the Code’s timeframes.
Following contact from this Service, the landlord did acknowledge the complaint. It set out its understanding of the complaint and said it had spoken to the resident, in line with its policy. Its complaint definition was imprecise but did refer to outstanding works. However, in its stage 1 response it defined the complaint as solely about the resident’s heating system which was a failing. The landlord failed to include or address all the elements of the complaint in breach of paragraph 5.6 of the Code. This was a significant failing which led to the resident’s representative escalating the complaint.
The landlord confirmed its position within its stage 2 response but added an ‘appendix’ addressing various repairs issues. This was a further failing, where the landlord had had the opportunity to have apologised for and rectified its earlier failing, by either addressing the resident’s complaint about repairs, or by recording a new complaint at stage. It did neither.
Before providing its stage 1 response the landlord requested 3 extensions of time. Its first request was for 12 working days and its second for 9 working days. Each time it exceeded these timeframes before contacting the resident again. This was a combined failing and in breach of the Code. It also failed to show an exceptional reason for the extensions. It said it was waiting on its contractors and then to confirm and arrange outstanding work. This was illogical as the landlord purposefully failed to address his complaint about repairs within its response. In addition, the Ombudsman’s position is that a response can normally be sent detailing the landlord’s assessment of the service provided so far and its proposed plan to put things right.
Within its stage 1 response the landlord referred to an exclusion of complaints where the matter occurred more than 6 months prior to the complaint. But then it went on to consider the complaint and said it had not received any contact about the issue of gas central heating in that period. This was both incorrect and confusing. It was correct that the landlord addressed the complaint, as it related to an unresolved ongoing issue. Its reference to its policy exclusion was therefore unhelpful.
Despite the resident’s representative escalating the complaint on 15 February 2023 it failed to acknowledge this and the representative had to chase it 5 times before it replied on 19 May 2023. This was 65 working days after escalation which was an unreasonable delay in breach of both its policy and the Code. In an internal email it accepted this failing was due to human error. However, it failed to acknowledge, apologise for, or offer a remedy for this within its response which was a further failing.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are to Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes. The landlord failed to demonstrate these within its complaints handling. There was severe maladministration which caused further inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident in pursuing his complaint. To reflect the impact an order has been made that the landlord pay £500 compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the formal complaint.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s various repairs.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to have gas central heating installed.

Reasons

There was severe maladministration as the landlord did not include or respond to all the elements of the complaint. It made unfounded extension requests at stage 1. It failed to acknowledge the stage 2 complaint and delayed in providing its stage 2 response. The landlord breached its policy and the Code, failed to acknowledge this, or demonstrate the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
There was maladministration as the landlord did not complete all the repairs within its policy timeframe. It cancelled appointments without notice or explanation. It also further delayed in completing the roof works beyond a reasonable timeframe.
There was service failure as landlord’s communication around not installing gas central heating was poor. It did not properly explain, once it knew the funding had ended, that this would not take place within a reasonable time. This led the resident to falsely maintain his expectation that he would get gas central heating.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident from the chief executive for the failures detailed in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident compensation of £800 made up of:
  1. £500 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused in pursuing his complaint.
  2. £200 for inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its repairs handing failings.
  3. £100 for inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its poor communication regarding his heating.
3. Reimburse the resident the cost of installing a gas meter if he suffered any expense in doing this or confirm if it paid or there was no charge from the gas supplier.
4. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.