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

Hyde Housing Association Limited (202315580)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315580

Hyde Housing Association Limited

26 March 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about a wide range of repair and maintenance issues in her home and garden.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. She started her tenancy in February 2021. She has informed the landlord that she and her son have mobility-related disabilities.
  2. The landlord conducted a survey inspection of the property in April 2021. It identified a wide range of issues to rectify in the property, gardens, and boundaries. The evidence shows that the resident received a copy of the survey report.
  3. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord in March 2023. She said that, despite her chasing the landlord about them, many of the issues identified in the 2021 survey had not yet been resolved or completed. These included clogged external drains which she said had caused flooding in her home, unmanaged trees, problems with internal drainage, damaged fences and boundary walls, brick rot, unused water tanks in the loft that needed to be removed, damp and mould, and ventilation vents needing replacement. She also complained that the landlord had not informed her of the presence of asbestos under the flooring. She said this had caused problems when she lifted the flooring.
  4. The landlord responded to the complaint in June 2023. It acknowledged that the repairs had been delayed and apologised for the “long, drawn-out process”. It agreed its policy was to provide a copy of asbestos reports at the start of a tenancy, and had not done so in this case. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused, and offered £150 compensation for its error. However, it also said the resident should not have undertaken improvements to the property without first checking with the landlord. It said it was the work she had done which had disturbed the flooring. It addressed other repair and maintenance issues the resident had raised, explaining which ones it believed it had already resolved, which ones it had made arrangements to resolve, and which were the resident’s responsibility to resolve.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint in July 2023. She repeated many of the same issues she had originally raised, and said that little, if any, of them had been resolved since the first complaint response.
  6. The landlord sent its final complaint response in October 2023. It acknowledged some of the repair issues had been delayed, or had not been dealt with appropriately, including the asbestos, and problems with guttering and drainage. It addressed the other repairs, either explaining the appointments it had made for them, or repeating the explanations it gave in its first response. It apologised for the failings it had identified, and increased its compensation to £350 due to its further delays and the inconvenience caused.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied and brought her complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Investigation scope

  1. Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which (in the Ombudsman’s opinion) were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. In this case many of the complaint issues raised by the resident with the landlord and the Ombudsman relate to repair matters from the start of the tenancy in early 2021. The resident made her formal complaint about them in March 2023.
  2. Given the time that had passed since the issues arose when the complaint was made, in line with paragraph 42(c) this investigation centres on the landlord’s handling of the complaint, rather than the specific original issues themselves.
  3. In her complaints the resident raised concerns about potential health effects for her family due to the asbestos in her home. No supporting information was provided to the landlord, or has been seen in this investigation. Nonetheless, an assessment of damage to health is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, and is more appropriately considered by a personal damage claim to the courts, who can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements and orders. Because of that this investigation does not consider whether the resident’s family’s health may have been damaged.
  4. The evidence shows that the resident raised further and new issues of concern with the landlord during her decant from her home, and afterwards. These matters arose after the end of the landlord’s complaint investigations. Because of that they cannot be considered in this investigation. They should be raised as new complaints to the landlord. If the resident remains dissatisfied following the landlord’s complaint investigations she can return to the Ombudsman with the new issues.

Landlord’s handling of a wide range of repair and maintenance issues in the resident’s home and garden

  1. The resident complained that several of the repair issues noted in the 2021 survey remained unresolved. These included trees in the back garden which had been noted as unsafe, rotten and collapsing fences, collapsed boundary walls, brick rot in external walls, gutter and drainage problems, vents, and a redundant water tank in the ceiling that needed to be removed. These issues (amongst others) formed the basis of the complaint.
  2. In its first response, in June 2023, the landlord explained it would visit to inspect the water tank in June, and the trees in the resident’s garden were for her to maintain (in line with her tenancy) but it had arranged a tree survey. It said it would repair the fence, but it was currently blocked by shrubbery which was the local council’s responsibility to clear, and it had arranged for the council to do so. It said neither the water tank, fence issues, or guttering and drainage had been reported previously. It said the brick work had been resolved in May, but did not address the issues of the boundary walls. Given that these issues had been listed in the original survey it was clearly incorrect for the landlord to tell the resident they had not been reported.
  3. Furthermore, while the tree may have been the resident’s responsibility, the original survey had described it as unsafe. Two years later the landlord arranged a tree inspection. Every landlord has an obligation to keep their properties safe and free from health hazards. The delay in this case between a potential risk being identified and further investigation of the issue was not reasonable. The information in the casefile shows that there are a number of trees, some in the resident’s garden and some outside it. An order is made below in relation to the different obligations that creates.
  4. The landlord sent its final complaint response in October 2023. It confirmed the guttering and drainage work was now complete. It gave a new date to inspect the water tank. It acknowledged the fence had not been repaired, but said this was because the shrubs still blocked it. It asked the resident to contact the council to arrange their clearance. It explained that its tree inspection had found the tree/trees to be healthy and not a risk, and further inspection would be scheduled for the next 24 months. While parts of this response addressed the resident’s issues of complaint, the landlord did not explain why there had been a delay inspecting the water tank, and it was not reasonable to tell the resident to resolve the shrubs when they were not her responsibility. The landlord had identified the shrubs were the council’s, and were delaying it completing the fence work the landlord was responsible for. If the shrubs were still stopping it from repairing the fence it was the landlord’s responsibility to chase the matter with the council.
  5. In its first complaint response the landlord acknowledged it had not given the resident the asbestos report for her home at the time she moved in. That was a significant oversight given there was asbestos present. It apologised, and offered the resident £150 compensation. It also undertook to remove the relevant material. The evidence shows the process of removing it was slowed by the fact the resident’s belongings needed to be moved, and she had explained she could not do that due to her disabilities. The landlord eventually agreed to decant her and her family, and that happened towards the end of 2023. The evidence shows the work was completed in October. The resident’s concerns about the asbestos and the potential risk it posed are understandable, but the property’s asbestos survey showed that it was low risk, and the recommendation had generally been to monitor (which the landlord’s asbestos policy states means add to the register, but gives no other action to take). Every indication is that the asbestos was contained, and it was understandable that the landlord commented that the resident had potentially disturbed it by undertaking improvements without notifying it. That does not mitigate the landlord’s own failure to provide the report in the first place, but the landlord’s response appears relevant and proportionate to the nature and scope of the issue reported to it, and the compensation and apologies it offered reasonable in the circumstances.
  6. In her complaints to the landlord, and to this Service, the resident raised concerns about damp issues related to the flooring. However, the original survey in 2021 did not note any such issues other than possible localised condensation. A further survey in April 2023 found no damp other than in a corner of the living room. The local council’s environmental health team wrote to the resident and landlord in December 2023 explaining that they had no concerns about damp and mould issues, and that the landlord had acted to prevent any such risk. In its complaint responses the landlord explained the outcome of its surveys. Its explanations were supported by the evidence it had at the time, and also by the subsequent local council comments. Its response to this issue therefore appears reasonable. The resident clearly believes otherwise, and a recommendation is made below in light of that.
  7. Problems with the external brickwork were noted in the original survey, and were part of the resident’s complaint to the landlord and the Ombudsman. The landlord explained in response that work had been done to the brickwork and completed in May 2023. Its records confirm major work was done (although the specific date is not listed). It is unclear, therefore, why the resident included the issue in her further complaint, but it is clear she does not believe the issue is resolved. The landlord’s responses do not provide reassurance that her continued dissatisfaction was investigated. Additionally, the landlord has not explained why an issue noted in April 2021 was not addressed until May 2023. Accordingly, this investigation cannot conclude the landlord has resolved the matter satisfactorily.
  8. The original survey noted that the front and side boundary walls had collapsed and were in need of repair. The landlord’s repair records show work to the walls in 2021. They suggest the work was completed, but are not wholly clear. In her complaint the resident said the wall at the front of the garden needed to be finished, and had a large gap between the wall and the fence. The survey in April 2023 noted that the work needed to be assessed, and the landlord said in its first complaint response that it would attend to the wall and gap after the fence was resolved. An internal email in July states that no work was needed to the wall. The resident raised the issue again in her escalation, explaining she felt the gap needed to be secured because of her disabled child (she did not give specific details about what the risk was, and it is not apparent from the evidence). The landlord did not address the matter in its final response, although it did explain again it was still waiting to fix the fence. It is not possible to say from the evidence provided what the situation was and currently is with this issue. However, given the resident raised it in her escalated complaint and explained she had concerns for her family’s security, basic complaint handling practice was for the landlord to address it, explaining what action it had taken or why it would not take action. It did not provide such an explanation.
  9. The 2021 survey report commented on ventilation in the property. It noted “Extractor fan vented through loft, flexible duct no insulation, replace with ridged or flexible insulated ductwork etc”. In her complaints the resident said that this had not yet been done. The landlord did not respond to the point until its final complaint response, in which it simply said it would inspect the loft vent in October 2023. The resident has said in her complaint to the Ombudsman that the issue is outstanding. The landlord did not acknowledge or explain why the issue remained unaddressed for so long after the original survey, leaving this element of the complaint also unresolved.
  10. The original survey report stated that there was an a redundant water tank in the loft which needed to be removed. This was another issue the resident complained had not been done. An internal email dated 4 July 2023 confirmed the tank had been recently inspected and was indeed empty and redundant. Other emails shortly afterwards state that the tank did not need to be removed. Accordingly, it is unclear why the landlord then told the resident in its final complaint response in October that the tank would be inspected later that month. It remains an unresolved issue in the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman. Any impact from the tank remaining in place is not apparent from the information provided, but the landlord’s complaint explanation did not reflect the evidence of its internal consideration of the matter, and there is no indication of it considering why the issue was still unresolved, one way or another, so long after the original survey.
  11. In her complaints to the landlord the resident explained that she had experienced multiple floods into her home over several years which had caused damage to her flooring and carpets. She attributed these floods to several of the incomplete issues in the 2021 survey, such as unmanaged trees, and guttering and drainage problems. In her complaint to the Ombudsman she explained her insurance company was refusing to cover her anymore and she wanted the landlord to compensate her for the damage. An internal email in November 2023, after the end of the landlord’s complaints process, confirms the resident telling it at that point she wanted the landlord to compensate her for the damage. Not enough information has been provided for this investigation to determine whether the landlord should consider providing such compensation. Nonetheless, the damage and its cost to her was clearly an element of the resident’s complaints, and the landlord has not provided any information showing it considered her request, either in its complaint process or outside it. That was not reasonable.
  12. In line with the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code), the landlord’s complaints policy sets out timescales of 10 working days to respond to an initial complaint, and 20 days for an escalated complaint. Its responses to both stages of the resident’s complaint were significantly outside these timescales. There is no evidence of updates to the resident or attempts to manage her expectations about how long the responses would take. Accordingly, the time taken by the landlord to respond to the complaints was not in line with its policy or the Code, and was a failing.

Determination (decision)

  1. In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

  1. Multiple repair and maintenance issues identified by the landlord in the resident’s home early in her tenancy remained unattended and unresolved for over two years, until the resident raised a complaint. The landlord addressed many of the issues the resident raised, but not all of them, and it did not acknowledge or explain its inaction.
  2. Several of the landlord’s responses to the complaint are not supported by the evidence, or are not reasonable. It acknowledged service failure for a small number of issues, but did not identify the wide range of shortcomings found in this investigation.
  3. The landlord’s complaint responses were significantly delayed, and it did not manage the complaint in line with its policy.

Orders and recommendations

  1. In light of the wide range of failings found in the landlord’s responses to the resident’s complaints it is ordered to pay her compensation of £1200. This amount is based on the scale of the complaint, and the resident’s circumstances. The amount is inclusive of the £350 previously offered by the landlord. Payment must be made within 4 weeks of this report, and evidence shown to this Service.
  2. Within 8 weeks a senior member of the landlord’s staff from the relevant team must visit and meet with the resident to discuss her concerns in relation to:
    1. The trees in her garden and outside. The resident told the landlord she did not have the ability or resources to manage trees in and around her garden. The landlord must demonstrate that it has made reasonable efforts to support the resident with the ones she is responsible for, either directly or by signposting her to sources of support. It must also demonstrate taking reasonable steps to support her take any necessary action in relation to any tress adjoining the garden which are the responsibility of other parties.
    2. The fences. Confirm with the resident that the fences have now been repaired, or provide a firm date when they will be.
    3. Inspect and discuss with the resident her ongoing concerns about: the brickwork, water tank, boundary wall gap, and ventilation system/vent in the loft. If this inspection identifies the need for further work, firm completion dates must be provided. If the landlord finds no grounds for further work it must clearly explain its conclusions.
    4. Evidence of these inspections and discussions, and details of any actions flowing from them must be provided to this Service by the 8 week deadline.
  3. Given that it did not consider the issue in its complaint responses, within 6 weeks of this report the landlord must discuss with the resident her concerns about water damage to her floorings, and consider her compensation request in light of it. Its consideration must take into account her explanation to the Ombudsman that she can no longer obtain insurance cover due to the number of claims she has needed to make in relation to the issue. The resident must provide to the landlord any relevant information and evidence she has to support her request. This order depends on her doing so. Evidence of this discussion and explanations for whatever actions or decisions the landlord takes must be provided by the 6-week deadline.
  4. As part of the abovementioned inspections, the landlord is also recommended to discuss with the resident her ongoing reports of damp in the property in order to understand the basis for her concerns. It should take reasonable steps to address and resolve her concerns.