Hyde Housing Association Limited (202320455)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320455

Hyde Housing Association Limited

11 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property.

Background

2. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord in a 2-bedroom first-floor flat. He lives with his partner and children one of whom is autistic.
3. On 25 July 2022 the resident reported cracks within the hallway. He said that the cracks were in several places including the outside and felt they had worsened. On 22 August 2022 the landlord attended the property and took photographs of the cracks. On 26 August 2022 the landlord raised an order for its surveyor to assess what works were needed. In November 2022 the landlord requested another inspection of the property.
4. On 28 March 2023 the resident raised a formal complaint. In summary, he said several repairs were outstanding and that he was becoming increasingly concerned with the internal and external cracks on the property. He added that he was unable to decorate. Between 13 and 26 April 2023 the landlord requested ‘scaffolding drawing’ to the front of the property for roof and guttering works. Upon inspection, it found cracks above the front door and large cracks to the render. Subsequently, it carried out a mould wash, plastered and filled the internal cracks. On 4 May 2023, the landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process. In summary, it said:
   1. It had raised an inspection for 4 May 2023 to assess the external cracks.
   2. It would arrange scaffolding on 17 May 2023 and that works to the roofing and guttering would commence following this.
   3. It would complete the plastering works to the cracks around the external doors on 19 May 2023.
   4. It should have completed the repairs much sooner and apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused.
   5. It upheld the complaint and offered a total of £350 compensation. Comprising of £50 for complaint handling failures, £200 for delays in service delivery, £50 for distress and inconvenience caused and £50 for poor communication.
5. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 5 July 2023. He said that the landlord had failed to attend on 19 May 2023 and the internal cracks had returned. He added that the guttering work was still outstanding, and the landlord had not updated him on this. On 1 August 2023 the landlord issued its final response. In summary, it said:
   1. It did not communicate how it would rectify the outstanding repairs.
   2. It recognised that it failed to do what it said it would do at stage 1.
   3. It would erect scaffolding on the week commencing 7 August 2023 and repair the guttering on 16 August 2023.
   4. It would attend to the internal cracks on 21 August 2023.
   5. It would attend to the external rendering cracks by the end of September 2023.
   6. It would increase the total offer of compensation to £600. Comprising of £100 for complaint handling failure, £200 for the delays on service, £100 for distress and inconvenience caused and £200 for customer effort.
6. In the resident’s referral to this Service, he said that the landlord had not kept to its promises and that work remained outstanding, despite chasing it. He added that the landlord had failed to attend scheduled appointments and that its contractors would turn up without notice. Further, he said that he had explained to the landlord several times that he has an autistic child who struggles with change and therefore the landlord needed to inform him of appointments in advance. As an outcome he wanted the landlord to complete the outstanding works and further compensation.

Assessment and findings

7. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
   1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
   2. Put things right.
   3. Learn from outcomes. 
8. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
9. The landlord’s repairs procedure states that an ‘anytime repair’ is a responsive repair that is not an emergency repair. It says it will arrange an appointment for this type of repair within 20 working days. It adds that if a pre-inspection with a surveyor is needed this will be arranged. The landlord’s contactors code of conduct policy states it will contact residents by text/telephone prior to their arrival to notify the resident that they are on their way to the property. Further, it states that explanations for delays must be communicated to residents as soon as possible.
10. Following the resident’s July 2022 report of internal and external cracks, the landlord attended the property within its repair timescales and took photographs of the cracks. However, it does not appear that any work took place at this stage. Indeed, its records showed that on 26 August 2022 it raised two surveyor inspections with target dates of 5 and 28 September 2022, to assess what work would be needed. Yet it appears neither of these inspections took place. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who would have likely felt that the landlord was failing to take his concerns seriously.
11. In November 2022 internal landlord emails indicated there was subsidence at the resident’s property. The landlord again asked that an inspection be carried out. In response, the landlord’s surveyor stated that they had visited the property and only found minor cracks and that no further works were needed. Yet there is no evidence to reconcile this such as a surveyor’s report or photographic evidence. Furthermore, it is unclear when this visit took place. This likely indicates issues with the landlord’s record keeping. This Service has not made any orders in this respect as we have made record-keeping orders in similar landlord cases.
12. In any case, the landlord only undertook work to fill the internal cracks in April 2023, over 7 months after it raised the first inspection. In addition, its records showed that it was not until May 2023, over 9 months since the resident’s initial July 2022 report that any meaningful inspection of the external cracks took place. These were considerable delays. Furthermore, the evidence suggested that the landlord was only prompted to raise an inspection following the resident’s March 2023 formal complaint. This would have caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident who had to chase the landlord to get matters resolved.
13. While it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise and offer compensation in its stage 1 for the delays, it failed to complete the plastering works to the cracks around the external doors within its agreed timescale of 19 May 2023. This is concerning as the landlord’s repairs log indicated that it did attend to the property on this date. The log stated that no cracks were found around the front door, only hairline cracks. Subsequently, the job was closed as completed. Yet in the resident’s escalation request, he said that the appointment booked for 19 May 2023 did not happen and the landlord did not dispute this. This suggests that the landlord either failed to attend on this date or did not inform him of the visit. Either way, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s contractor failed to follow the code of conduct policy in this respect. Furthermore, the resident was entitled to believe that the landlord would complete the works it committed to in its stage 1 response.
14. Although the landlord did the drawings for the scaffolding as agreed in its stage 1 response, it failed to erect the scaffolding and repair the roofing and guttering within a reasonable timescale. The landlord’s final response acknowledged these failings and increased its offer of compensation. While this offer was broadly in line with this Service’s remedies guidance the landlord failed to keep its commitments made in its final response. This led to the resident chasing the landlord on more than 2 occasions for an update during September 2023 and October 2023, yet there is no evidence that the landlord responded to him. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who would have likely felt that the landlord was ignoring him.
15. Indeed, it was not until May 2024 that the internal and external cracks were finally repaired, approximately 9 months after the landlord’s commitment to do so in its final response. This was another considerable delay. Moreover, it demonstrated that the landlord did not learn from its previous failings.
16. In the resident’s referral to this Service, he said the landlord failed to attend scheduled appointments and that people would turn up without notice. This appeared to be a regular issue after the landlord’s final response. The landlord’s records showed that on at least 2 occasions in August 2023, the resident informed the landlord that its contractors were turning up on multiple occasions without his knowledge, which was affecting his child’s mental health. Furthermore, it appeared that at least one scheduled appointment to resolve the cracks did not go ahead as planned. This would have caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident who would have likely felt that the landlord was not having due regard for his child’s needs.
17. It is considered that the overall detriment caused to the resident has not been ‘put right’. The landlord failed to keep to its commitments in its final response, failed to keep to appointments and appeared to attend the property without prior arrangements. Furthermore, there was a lack of updates on the progress of works which was contrary to its policy. This amounts to maladministration and this Service has made an order of compensation in line with our remedies guidance which suggests that awards of over £100 should be considered where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident.
18. The resident informed this Service that despite the landlord taking steps to resolve the damp and mould in his property as agreed in its stage 1 response the issue persists. While this Service has not assessed this matter as part of this investigation as it has not been through the landlord’s complaint process, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to address these concerns.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the property.

Orders

20. The landlord must do the following within the next 4 weeks:
    1. Provide a written apology for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident further compensation of £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property.
21. The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendation

22. The landlord should liaise with the resident and address his ongoing concerns about damp and mould in line with its procedures.