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

Hyde Housing Association Limited (202320282)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320282

Hyde Housing Association Limited

23 April 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 and response to:

  1. The resident’s reports of a fault with her front door.
  2. The associated complaint.

Background

2.             The resident is a tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. Her tenancy began in 2002. The property is a house. The resident has a physical disability and is a long term wheelchair user.

3.             Historically, the resident’s wooden front door was replaced in October 2020 due to its age and condition. The landlord’s records show that it was replaced with a UPVC door. The Ombudsman has seen evidence of at least 2 repairs carried out in 2022 due to the door “dropping”. The repair records show that the door was hard to open and close, and that this was happening every 6 months. A repair was raised on 30 March 2023 to “attend” to the front door. The record for the repair shows that this was cancelled because the appointment was no longer needed.

4.             The resident raised a complaint on 21 June 2023. She advised that the door kept dropping and while operatives came to tighten the door in the past, she had been informed that it needed refitting. A supervisor had previously attended and said that they would form a plan moving forwards, she was then informed that the repair she had raised had been closed but was assured that follow-on works would be raised. She had called to chase this a number of times and had not had any response regarding the work which had been outstanding for 3 months. She explained that she was unable to close the door independently and needed the issues resolved. She also noted that each time she called, staff members were rude and unhelpful and she had been told that day that there was no original job raised.

5.             The landlord initially upheld the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of its process on 29 June 2023. It admitted that it should have completed repairs sooner and offered £75 for the delay in completing repairs and the distress and inconvenience caused. It said it had arranged an appointment for 11 July 2023 to repair the front door. The letter confirmed that the resident could escalate her complaint within 10 working days if she remained dissatisfied.

6.             The resident escalated her complaint on the same day and explained the following:

  1. She was dissatisfied that the door repair had not been booked until 11 July 2023 as she had not been able to leave her home independently for 3 months and needed to wait a further 2 weeks to do so. She was also concerned that the job was to overhaul the door, meaning that the hinges would be tightened but she would be in the same position a few weeks later.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy stated that it would call her to discuss the complaint but no one had and she did not have the opportunity to further explain her complaint. She had also been informed that day on the resolution call that she was not able to escalate the complaint as she needed to wait for the repair. She said that the repair was not scheduled within the timeframe in which she was required to escalate the complaint.
  3. She had raised concern about the call handling and rude manner she had been spoken to in her initial complaint but this had been ignored. She was also concerned about the way she was spoken to on a call that day.
  4. She was dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered and did not feel the landlord had understood her concern that she was not able to close her front door. She did not believe her disabilities had been fully considered.

7.             The resident continued to request updates on her escalation on 3 occasions in July 2023. A repair to her door was carried out on 11 July 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint escalation on 2 August 2023 following a call where the resident expressed concern that there were gaps around the door since the repair on 11 July 2023, she had been informed that the repair was temporary and the door would need replacing as it was beyond repair, and she had not heard anything since. She added that the wrong type of door had been fitted in the first place and that she had been trapped in her house for 4 months.

8.             In response to the resident at stage 2 of its complaints process on 9 August 2023, the landlord apologised for the further difficulties she had faced. It said it had found no failure in its service and did not uphold the stage 2 complaint. It confirmed that contractors would attend on 25 August 2023 to carry out a repair and it had been informed by its repairs contractor that the door was not a suitable size for the resident’s requirements. It said that the door was a standard size and for her specific requirements, she would need to request an occupational therapy assessment. The occupational therapist would then submit the relevant adaptations to the local authority who would arrange payment to it to complete the works. A temporary repair to the door was carried out on 25 August 2023.

9.             The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman in December 2023 as she was dissatisfied that the landlord had not taken responsibility for its errors and the discrimination she had been subject to as a result of it blaming the issues she faced on her wheelchair and medical needs. She remained dissatisfied that a supervisor had not followed through with the repair for 3 months despite making it clear that unless the door was repaired, she could not open and close the door independently. She had been told that the door was not fitted correctly on 2 occasions but the landlord had now said the door was not wide enough for her needs, despite it being wide enough for 20 years and only having issues since it was renewed. She added that operatives had suggested that the reason the door may be dropping was due to the bottom access threshold being UPVC and that her wheelchair may be moving this. She continues to experience issues with the door dropping.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10.        In her communication with the Ombudsman, the resident has raised concern that she has been discriminated against by the landlord as it had blamed the issues she faced on her wheelchair use. It not within the Ombudsman’s remit to determine whether discrimination has taken place or whether the landlord has breached its legal obligations under the Equality Act 2010 as these are legal matters for a court to decide on. However, it is within the Ombudsman’s role to identify whether a landlord has given due regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 and consider the general distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Policies and procedures

11.        The resident’s tenancy agreement shows that the landlord is responsible for repairs and maintenance of external doors. Its repairs procedure confirms that this includes the door, frame, mouldings and hinges. The procedure further states that emergency repairs, required in order to sustain the immediate health, safety or security of the resident, including insecure doors, would be attended to within 4 hours and made safe within 24 hours. Anytime repairs should be completed within 20 working days.

12.        The landlord’s aids and adaptations procedure splits adaptations into 2 definitions; minor adaptations are alterations that can be made without a referral from an Occupational Therapist and cost under £1000; major adaptations require an OT assessment and would usually only be carried out where the resident has successfully been awarded a Disabled Facilities Grant.  Major adaptations are noted to include stair lifts, level access showers, kitchen adaptations, ramps, and half steps.

13.        In considering the landlord’s duties under the Equality Act 2010, the Ombudsman may consider how the landlord has considered its duty to make reasonable adjustments, including avoiding a disadvantage presented by a physical feature. Organisations are only obliged to make adjustments where it is reasonable to do so, and the Ombudsman considers whether a landlord has properly considered whether the adjustments are practicable and if they would overcome the disadvantages experienced by a disabled person. We may find service failure or maladministration if a landlord cannot demonstrate it properly considered whether adjustments were reasonable or should be made.

14.        The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a 2 stage formal complaints process. At each stage the complaint must be acknowledged within 5 working days. At stage 1, the landlord must then respond within 10 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the response, they can escalate the complaint to stage 2, which the landlord should respond to within 20 working days.

15.        The policy specifies that the stage 1 complaint handler would work with the resident to understand the complaint and how the resident wants it to put things right. As part of its approach, the landlord would always attempt to speak to the resident in person unless they have requested alternative methods of communication. It adds that it may decline to consider a resident’s escalation request if it had agreed to carry out a non-urgent repair within its published timescales, or where the complaint was upheld at stage 1 and the resident remains dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered.

The resident’s reports of a fault with her front door

16.        As part of this investigation, the landlord was asked twice to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. Only limited information was received, which did not include significant items such as relevant communication logs and call notes with the resident, internal correspondence setting out how it investigated the resident’s concerns or formed its decision, or repair notes or other documents to evidence how it was established that it was the resident’s wheelchair that was causing the door to drop. 

17.        The omissions indicate poor record keeping by the landlord in that it was not able to provide this information to the Ombudsman when asked. The Ombudsman relies on contemporaneous documentary evidence to ascertain what events took place, reach conclusions on whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable, and determine whether it had fully considered its responsibilities in all the circumstances of the case. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.

18.        The landlord’s records show that a repair was raised on 30 March 2023 to “attend to front door of property”; there are no records to confirm what the issue was at the time or how urgent the repair may have been in view of the resident’s mobility needs. This indicates a failure in the way the landlord logged the repair in the first instance. The record shows that this was cancelled as the appointment was no longer needed, however, it is unclear when this note was applied and the landlord has not provided any other justification or evidence showing that the resident had said this was no longer needed or that anyone had attended the property. As such, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that there was a justifiable reason that the job was cancelled.

19.        The resident said she informed the landlord that she was unable close the door independently on a number of occasions prior to her complaint on 21 June 2023 and had spent time and trouble chasing information, with a lack of communication from the supervisor who had taken ownership of the repair. While there is a lack of evidence of any contact due to the poor records provided by the landlord, the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. The landlord failed to provide evidence to demonstrate that it had effectively communicated with the resident at any stage. The only correspondence with the resident provided to the Ombudsman was in relation to the complaint she had made – the lack of appropriate communications was likely to have caused inconvenience to her, particularly given her serious concerns about access in and out of the property.

20.        The landlord was put on notice that the resident was unable to close her door independently and had been unable to do so since March 2023 within her complaint on 21 June 2023. It has not demonstrated that it gave due regard for the resident’s disability needs or circumstances when arranging a repair appointment for 11 July 2023, 14 days later. By this stage, there had already been a delay of approximately 3 months and it should have taken steps to ensure that the issue was resolved as a priority. This is especially important given the likely emotional impact on the resident who needed to rely on others to assist her, and the security implications of the resident not being able to close her door when the door needed to be opened for any reason when she was alone. Ultimately, if a resident reports that they are unable to close the front door due to a repair issue impacting their ability to do so, this should be attended to and remedied within a priority timescale in view of the potential security risks.

21.        The landlord apologised for the delay and confirmed that it should have completed repairs sooner within its complaint response. However, it has failed to offer any explanation for the delay in either completing a repair to the door or ensuring that the resident could close the door between her report on 30 March 2023 and the subsequent repair on 11 July 2023, a period of 3 and a half months. Overall, the Ombudsman does not find the landlord’s offer of £75 compensation proportionate given the likely impact on the resident during this time or the inconvenience caused. It was not reasonable for the landlord to leave the resident in a situation where she could only secure the property with assistance from another person who may not always be there. 

22.        In addition to the above, the resident raised concerns in her complaint that despite repairs to tighten the hinges on each occasion in the past, the door had repeatedly dropped. Within her escalation, she expressed concern that the repair to tighten the hinges would not be a long term fix and that the wrong type of door had been installed when the door was replaced. Following the initial repair on 11 July 2023, the resident had reported that the door had dropped again by 7 August 2023 when a new repair was raised, resulting in the same impact on her.

23.        In its stage 2 complaint response to the resident, the landlord said that its repair contractors had reasoned that the size of the resident’s current door was not suitable for her requirements. While it did not specifically refer to her wheelchair use within its complaint response, this is implied. It stated that the resident would need to request an Occupational Therapy assessment and submit for a grant so that it could be paid to complete the works.

24.        The resident is dissatisfied that the landlord had blamed her mobility issues and wheelchair use for the issues she was experiencing when she was informed that the door was fitted incorrectly and the wrong type of door had been installed. She has informed this Service that she was told by an operative that it was likely that the bottom threshold of the door was moved by her wheelchair when entering or leaving the property which caused the door to drop, meaning that it was the access level of the threshold (rather than the width of her wheelchair) that was the problem. She noted that she had also had a door of a standard width for the entirety of her tenancy.

25.        It should be noted that it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine the cause of the repeated fault with the resident’s front door or make an assessment of this. However, it is within our role to determine how the landlord came to this conclusion and whether its conclusion was reasonably based on evidence.

26.        If the door needed to be replaced as it was beyond economic repair, it would be reasonable for the landlord to request an Occupational Therapy assessment to confirm whether a standard door was suitable for the resident’s needs, or whether an Occupational Therapist would recommend a wider door. For major adaptations such as the widening of a door frame, it would also be reasonable for the landlord to request that this was funded through a Disabled Facilities Grant in view of the likely cost.

27.        However, in this case, the landlord has not demonstrated how it reached the conclusion that the resident’s door was not the correct size for her requirements. The landlord has not provided any records to:

  1. Suggest that the width of the door is an issue or clearly confirm what it understood the reason for the fault to be.
  2. Confirm whether the door needs to be replaced or whether repairs could be carried out.
  3. Show it had considered whether it gave due regard for the resident’s disability when initially installing the different type of door in 2020, whether the correct access level was provided in view of her wheelchair use (which it was evidently aware of at the time), or whether any error had been made.
  4. Demonstrate that it had considered whether any adjustments, or minor adaptations, could be made to prevent the repeated issues.
  5. Show it had communicated this to the resident at any stage prior to its final complaint response.

28.        The landlord has ultimately provided no evidence to support its position that the resident needs an Occupational Therapy assessment because the door is not the right size for her needs. In addition, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have communicated with the resident regarding this rather than first informing her of this decision within a response to a complaint about delays in completing a repair. Seeking an Occupational Therapy assessment and subsequently a grant to pay for an adaptation takes time and would not be an immediate fix. A Disabled Facilities Grant is also not guaranteed. The landlord failed to offer any reassurance to the resident or attempt to take any interim measures to prevent or reduce the impact on her.

29.        In summary, the Ombudsman has found maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the concerns about the front door. There was poor record keeping or provision of records to the Ombudsman and it failed to demonstrate that it had communicated effectively with the resident. There was a significant delay in repairing the door which was preventing the resident from leaving the property or securing her front door independently, and lack of urgency to resolve this once it was evidently aware of the impact. It failed to provide a clear explanation for the door fault or evidence its decision making, and failed to demonstrate that it had adequately considered the resident’s disability or had due regard to its responsibilities given the resident’s disability.

30.        The landlord’s overall offer of £75 compensation is not considered proportionate in view of the impact on the resident and the distress and inconvenience likely to have been caused. Several orders have been made below for the landlord to pay additional compensation, complete a survey of the door, and communicate its plan of action moving forward to prevent and resolve the impact of the ongoing door fault.

The landlord’s handling and response to the associated complaint.

31.        The resident initially made a complaint on 21 June 2023 and the landlord responded at stage 1 on 29 June 2023. While this was within a reasonable timeframe, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had acknowledged the complaint formally or attempted to contact the resident to understand her complaint in line with its complaints process.

32.        In addition, while the response acknowledged failure to complete repairs, the landlord failed to adequately demonstrate that if had fully investigated the resident’s concerns. The response was brief and did not include any substantive response to the resident’s concerns about a lack of communication from its staff, rude behaviour from its call handlers, not being able to open or close the door independently, the previous repair in March 2023 being closed with no follow-on works, or that she had been informed the door needed refitting. It also offered no explanation for its failure to complete works at an earlier date or its poor communication.

33.        The resident said she was told during the stage 1 complaint resolution phone call on 29 June 2023 that she would need to wait for the repair to be completed before escalating her complaint. The Ombudsman has not been provided with any call notes to show what was said on this call but does not doubt the resident’s comments. While the landlord’s policy does state that it may decline to consider a resident’s escalation request if it had agreed to carry out a non-urgent repair within its published timescales, this is not considered an appropriate reason to decline to investigate a stage 2 complaint.

34.        While we cannot confirm that the resident was told she would not be allowed to escalate the complaint, it is noted that she raised this concern within her escalation email to the landlord on 29 June 2023 and the landlord failed to acknowledge the escalation request at the time or confirm its position to her. The resident spent additional time and trouble pursuing an update on at least 3 occasions – 7, 11 and 27 July 2023 – before the complaint was acknowledged on 2 August 2023. This likely caused the resident inconvenience and meant she had to go to unnecessary time and trouble to get confirmation her complaint had been escalated.

35.        The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 9 August 2023. This was issued outside of its expected timescales and the landlord failed to acknowledge or remedy the delay within its subsequent response. Within its response, it again failed to demonstrate it had fully considered the issues raised by the resident in relation to staff conduct, its handling of her complaint and communication, or fully acknowledged what she had said about how the door issues had impacted her ability to leave the property independently. It also failed to confirm how it would learn from the failings it had identified in relation to the delay in completing repairs or confirm how it would prevent such issues occurring in the future.

36.        Overall, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint as it failed to fully consider her reported concerns or demonstrate that it had completed an adequate investigation. An order has been made below for the landlord to pay additional compensation to the resident in recognition of the time and trouble caused to her and the inconvenience caused by its failure to address her concerns. The landlord has been ordered to review the resident’s case alongside any evidence it has available, or would have been available at the time of the complaint, to identify points of learning. The Ombudsman has made orders to the landlord within other casework in relation to its record keeping and knowledge and information management. As such, no further orders related to this will be made in this report.

Determination

37.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling and response to the resident’s reports of a fault with her front door.

38.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling and response to the associated complaint.

Orders

39.        Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.

40.        Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to pay the resident £900 compensation, comprised of:

  1. £600 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in its handling and response to her reports of a fault with her front door. This includes its previous offer of £75.
  2. £300 in recognition of the inconvenience and time and trouble caused to the resident by its poor complaint handling.

41.        Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to complete a survey of the door to confirm the reason that it may be dropping and consider whether repairs can be completed or whether the door does need to be replaced. Within 2 weeks of the survey, the landlord is to write to the resident setting out:

  1. The reason it believes the door is dropping and the findings of the survey. Where it remains of the view that the size of the door is the main problem, it should clearly explain how it had reached this view given her report that the door width had not changed in the time she has lived at the property.
  2. Which parts of the door are allegedly impacted by the resident’s wheelchair.
  3. Steps it will take to resolve the issue.
  4. Any adjustments or minor adaptations that it could offer to prevent ongoing issues for the resident.
  5. A clear explanation as to why it requires an Occupational Therapy Assessment before replacing the door if this is the case.
  6. Steps it will take to mitigate the ongoing issues affecting the resident leaving the property independently whilst it awaits an Occupational Therapy assessment or subsequent Disabled Facilities Grant if this is reasonably found to be required. This may include responding to her future reports of problems using the front door (and being able to leave her property) in line with its emergency repairs timescale (or an alternative set timescale) until the matter is resolved.

42.        The landlord is ordered to carry out a management review of the resident’s case to establish points of learning. It should provide a copy of the review to this Service within 6 weeks of the date of this report. This should consider:

  1. The evidence that was available (or may have been available) regarding the door fault and any missed opportunities there were to resolve the issues.
  2. Any staff training that may improve its future response to similar cases.

43.        The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within the specified timescales.

Recommendations

44.        It is recommended that the landlord considers carrying out staff training for complaint handlers, if it has not already done so, to ensure that each aspect of a resident’s complaint is addressed, and any actions required to be taken by a resident are fully explained and justified.