Hyde Housing Association Limited (202127492)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127492

Hyde Housing Association Limited

29 February 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.
1. The residents request for compensation for damaged personal items.
2. The landlords response to the residents reports of water ingress into his property.
3. The landlords response to the residents concerns regarding staff conduct.
This service has also considered the landlords complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The residents request for compensation for damaged personal items.
Paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure”.
The Ombudsman will not consider claims for damaged personal items, as these should be referred to the landlord’s insurers. Unlike the courts or insurance companies, we are not able to make a legally binding determination on whether the landlord has been negligent or whether it is liable for damages. Therefore, the residents request for compensation and the landlords response to this is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured shorthold fixed term tenant of the landlord, the tenancy started on 9 March 2020 and is for the term of 5 years. The property is a 1 bedroom flat. The landlord records note the resident as “physically disabled”. The resident has explained he suffers from chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia syndrome, which causes significant disruption to his daily life.
According to section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the building.
The tenancy agreement states:
1. The resident has the right to live peacefully in the property and the landlord will not interfere with this right unless it needs access to the property to inspect or carry out repairs.
2. The landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure of the property, including the roof, gutters and outside walls.
3. The resident must allow the landlord to enter the home to inspect or carry out any work needed at reasonable hours of the day.
4. The resident is responsible for keeping the inside of the property clean and in a good condition.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that:
1. it will provide “efficient, prompt, transparent and customer focused repair services ensuring high customer satisfaction.”
2. It will also “carry out efficient, accurate, and timely pre and post inspections”.
3. It will “comply with regulatory and statutory obligations, including ensuring repair requests are investigated and works carried out according to its stated timescales”.
According to the residents handbook, which can be found on the landlords website, it will attend to emergency repairs within 4 hours and make safe within 24 hours. Emergency repairs are defined as those which threaten health, safety or security or could cause significant damage to the home including flooding or total loss of electricity or water. All non-urgent repairs will be attended to within 20 working days and arranged on a day convenient to the resident. The website says it “may deal more urgently with some repairs for vulnerable residents.”
The landlords Hoarding Procedure sets out the approach that the landlord will take when dealing with hoarding. It aims to balance the rights of the tenant, with its duty to tackle issues that can cause a health and safety issue. This procedure also states:
1. “Any property which meets the hoarding threshold (i.e. exceeds the OCD Clutter Image Rating scale of ‘4’ or more) will be referred to: the relevant local authority Adult Social Care team; Successful Tenancies Team; Fire Service for a Home Fire Safety Check; and Property Services Compliance Team to be flagged on the Fire Risk Assessment Database”.
2. Hoarding becomes an issue and requires action when it has health and safety implications or the landlord is being hindered from carrying out a statutory duty.
3. “A Tenancy Officer (or an alternative staff member if the tenant is more willing to engage with them) should visit the property and use the Hoarding Checklist (HOARD01) to identify whether the condition of the property meets the threshold for hoarding”. If it does a Hoarding Action plan should be completed, which where possible should be agreed with the tenant and confirmed in writing.
4. Appropriate action could include enforcement action where the tenant is not engaging.
5. “Contact with the tenant (either in person or by letter) should warn the tenant that failure to allow access and comply with other terms of their tenancy agreement is a breach of tenancy and could result in enforcement action being taken”.
6. The landlord must make “a minimum of 3 attempts to gain access to the property over a 5-week period”.
7. “If after 3 attempts access has not been gained to the property, then it will be necessary to consider enforcement action to gain access. If there is a high-risk issue, enforcement action may be considered earlier”.
8. It will take all possible steps to work with the tenant, their advocates and other relevant agencies before we begin any enforcement action.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints will be responded to within 20 working days. If it requires more time to respond it will explain this to the resident.
The landlords complaints and compensation policy statement says compensation payments made be made to reflect the circumstances of each case. Payments may be offered where:
1. The landlord has failed to deliver a service to the advertised standard.
2. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience experienced by the customer.
3. To reflect where a customer has suffered a loss because of a service failure.

Summary of events

The resident made a complaint about the timeliness of roof repairs on 21 July 2021, the landlord spoke to the resident on this day about his complaint, notes from this conversation detailed the resident stated:
1. The leak started on 3 May 2021 and came through the wall and the ceiling in his home.
2. A plumber had been out to look at the leak and told the resident it was a roof problem and so was not able to fix it.
3. The resident contacted the landlord after this visit and subsequently the area was inspected from the ground.
4. He did not receive any communication after this visit but scaffolding was erected around 6 weeks later.
5. The resident reported the repairs to fix the leak created further leaks and a roof repair was done, which caused him distress and discomfort.
6. The landlord told him that the roof had been fixed but soon after this he started to have water leak into the lounge which affected the main light.
7. The landlord attended and turned the lights off so that it was safe but the resident reported that personal items were damaged from the leak.
8. A Contract Manager at the time, would not take the residents calls.
9. The resident spoke to different people around the business trying to resolve the leak issue. Each time he called the landlord gave him a different reference number. When he quoted it back to the landlord, he was told the number was not related to anything and that it was related to the times he had called or the complaint details. This did not really help him or the roof repair progress.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint regarding the roof leak and service he had received via email on 21 July 2021. The landlord aimed to provide its stage 1 response on 2 August 2021.
On 27 July 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and summarised his complaint in points, this included:
1. The time taken to complete the repairs was too long.
2. The full extent of the damage still needed to be “properly assessed”.
3. The landlord had no protocol for out of hours leak assistance, causing damage to possessions.
4. There had been no “proper survey” of his flat despite 3 call outs.
5. A survey was conducted in the week ending 24 July 2021, about 12 weeks after the initial leak.
6. Ladders were left out for weeks and posed a security risk.
7. A manager had refused to take his call.
8. A very loud radio was played on the roof whilst repairs were being undertaken.
9. He had made many calls with “little to no positive action resulting”.
10. The roofing company made “unnecessary building noise” throughout the works.
11. There was a lack of contact from the landlord throughout.
The landlord sent the resident an update letter on 2 August 2021 advising it would not be able to respond as previously stated as it required more time to gather the information, which had taken longer than expected. It advised it would aim to provide a response by 16 August 2021.
Internal emails were provided during August 2021 which showed the landlord discussing the support that may have been required for proposed repair works to go ahead.
The landlord sent the resident an update letter on 16 August 2021 advising it would not be able to respond as previously stated as it required more time to gather the information, which had taken longer than expected. It advised it would aim to provide a response by 30 August 2021.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 27 August 2021. In its response the landlord noted the resident had complained the roof leak was not repaired in a reasonable time and he was not communicated with over the repairs, which resulted in him chasing for information. The landlord went on to say:
1. It agreed it had not carried out the repairs in a reasonable time, nor did it communicate effectively with the resident.
2. It offered £500 as an apology for the poor service experienced.
3. It said it could not compensate for damaged items, the resident would need to claim of his own contents insurance for these.
4. It was waiting for items to be moved before it started works in the inside of the property.
5. It clarified what works would be done, which included removing sections of plaster, carrying out a mould wash before skimming, redecoration and installing a new carpet in the bedroom. Similar works were also proposed for the hallway, lounge and bathroom.
6. It apologised for its poor communication and giving the resident numerous different repair numbers.
7. It apologised for the roofing work not going “smoothly” due to mismanagement.
8. It acknowledged the resident had been through “hardship” due to the lack of management of the repairs.
9. It confirmed in order for the internal repairs to progress, the property would need to be decluttered.
10. It acknowledged that other factors needed to be considered for the delays, Covid 19, and the weather but it did not excuse the poor communication.
11. The landlord concluded summarising what it had found and agreed to,
  1. It did not ensure the roof was patched to prevent further water damage.
  2. It did not communicate with the resident concerning the repairs.
  3. It did not provide him with information about what to expect when the roof was repaired.
  4. It did not check or ask the resident how he was under the circumstances.
  5. It had agreed to redecorate and replace carpets as a gesture of goodwill.
An internal email dated 31 August 2021 says the resident had asked if it could go in and treat the mould issue but it had suggested some of his belongings needed to be cleared in order to do so.
The resident emailed the landlord numerous times between 12 September 2021 and 23 November 2021 with his comments following its stage 1 response and advised the complaint was not resolved as he did not agree with the initial response. Within these emails the resident made numerous statements, including, but not limited to:
1. Personal items were damaged by the landlords failure to repair.
2. He had to move items to prevent further damage, from further leaks.
3. The floor space was reduced due to the ongoing leaks.
4. He still had “thick, black mould” on the bedroom wall.
The landlord responded to the resident on 28 October 2021, apologised that he was unhappy with the detail and requested contact. The landlord provided a direct phone number for this contact.
Numerous emails were provided from November 2021 which showed the landlord advised the resident the level of clutter was in breach in his tenancy and requested he consider the contractors help to help clear the clutter for the works to progress.
On 22 November 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and advised he felt threatened by an email sent by a support officer on 3 November 2021. He asked the landlord why he had not heard anything regarding the “alleged tenancy breach”.
A case note dated 1 December 2021, states the landlord as “mindful” of the residents anxiety, when suggesting a plan to write to him advising of the risk of tenancy action to “galvanise action”. These notes show the landlord believed the current state of the property to be a breach of the tenancy agreement.
The landlord responded to the resident on 7 December 2021 and confirmed it had been reported that the property was “cluttered” to such an extent it was required to be reduced for health and safety reasons and to prevent a fire risk. The landlord confirmed it would offer support to de-clutter and would fund this for the resident. It concluded by advising tenancy enforcement action would only be required if the resident failed to engage with the process.
On 18 December 2021, the resident emailed the landlord the first of a series of emails about the “intimidation and harassment” he was experiencing. He stated he suffered “significant disability due to severe chronic illnesses” which he received some treatment for but he also restricted his daily activities to avoid making the symptoms worse. He stated he was being threatened by the landlord. The second email sent on this day stated the “bullying” was having a detrimental effect on his health.
On 19 December 2021 the resident sent a third email to the landlord, within this he asked for time to send a number of short emails when he was able to respond to the stage 1 complaint response. He requested in this email that the “thick black mould” be removed as soon as possible from the corner of his bedroom, which he recognised would require him to make space for this to happen. In his fourth email, which was also sent this day, the resident advised he felt emails from 2 members of staff were “unnecessarily aggressive, threatening, and bullying”.
The resident went on to send a further 2 emails on 19 December 2021. In the first he stated he was open to a discussion to determine the safety risk but not with the staff members he had complained about. He also stated the reason for the clutter was due to the leaks he had experienced as he had to “squeeze possessions” into a decreasing floorspace. He concluded these emails noting that he had made some progress with the clutter, as he said he would, given the time.
Within an email on 20 December 2021, the resident said if stuff is in the way, restricting a repair to progress, then it should be “placed safely out of the way by those who caused the damage”.
An internal email from the landlord on 22 December 2021 stated the resident:
1. Had refused the services of the contractor to help de-clutter his property as it would not paint the walls which he felt was required.
2. He did not feel his flat to be cluttered or the barrier to complete the work.
3. He had been written to twice asking him to reconsider as he is in breach of his tenancy agreement.
The resident replied to the landlords email dated 7 December 2021 on 20 January 2022, he stated he was “extremely dismayed” by its content. In this email the resident:
1. “vehemently” disputed he was hoarding and took offence at such claim.
2. Said he was dealing with the clutter as his disability permitted.
3. Said the clutter was caused by the landlord.
4. Due to numerous leaks he had to relocate his personal items around the flat to protect them.
5. This “caused significant emotional and physical strain”, which led to a “significant deterioration” in his health.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 26 January 2022 and advised a visit had been arranged for 7 February 2022.
On 3 February 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and said the date for the visit was not convenient and it would take him time to respond to the letter in full, due to his illness. He continued to advise he would never be available on a Monday but hoped to be available for an inspection from 22 February 2022. He requested prior to an inspection however, he be supplied with the pictures taken at a previous visit and a copy of his signed tenancy agreement. He advised he would prefer email communication due to being 98 percent housebound.
The landlord responded on 4 February 2022, noted the refusal and rearranged a further date of 3 March 2022 for the visit. It advised a further refusal “without valid reason” would not be acceptable and it would “press ahead” with enforcement action in the form of serving notice on the resident. It advised courts took “a very dim view of residents who do not accept support being offered by their housing provider to maintain tenancies”. It explained the inspection was to see if the property was cluttered to a level, it would be a breach of tenancy. It reiterated it had offered support but if the resident continued to work against it “by refusing or cancelling and stalling” visits, then it would be left with no choice but to take the route of enforcement and re-possession.
The resident emailed the landlord on 28 February 2022 requesting to make a complaint about 4 separate issues which he said he would wait to provide full information about until he had received a complaint reference but advised it had caused “serious harm: both psychological and physiological”. His complaints included, but were not limited to:
1. His experience with a specific officer who he alleged used deception to gain entry to his property and made at least 1 “aggressive, bullying communication”.
2. His experience with another specific officer who he alleged “communicated threats” and “exploited or ignored the potential” to cause harm.
3. The lack of reply from the property maintenance team regarding a telephone report made about a leak in the bathroom. He stated this was a repeat of the events in May 2021, which were currently under a complaint.
4. His plea for help against the intimidation from officers which was made in a series of emails between 18 December 2021 and 20 December 2021 had been ignored by the chief executive officer. In this email he stated the ongoing complaint had been paused due to the direct harm caused by this.
The landlord acknowledged the residents emails on 28 February 2022 and advised a formal stage 1 had been raised. This email stated it was “receiving a high amount of contact” therefore he may experience a delay before a member of the complaints team contacted him to commence a formal investigation.
On 1 March 2022, the resident emailed the landlord and said he had “had enough of the aggressive, bullying replies” and “threats and intimidation”. He advised he had started a complaint about this matter on 28 February 2022 as he had “suffered harm, both physiological and psychological, as a direct consequence” of the landlords behaviour. He advised due to this he would no longer engage with specific officers nor would they be allowed access on 3 March 2022.
Despite a further email on 2 March 2022 from the resident in which he stated he would not allow access for specific officers, but would for others, the landlord responded with a new appointment date of 24 March 2022. It concluded by advising if this appointment was not kept, no further appointments would be offered and it would apply to court to seek an injunction for access.
The landlord attempted to phone the resident on 7 March 2021 to discuss his complaint about 1 of the officers. It followed this up with an email to say it would call again the next day.
The resident responded on 8 March 2022 and advised he would not be available for a call. He continued to detail his complaint in full and described the officers behaviour as “unacceptable”. The landlord responded to advise it was calling to just discuss his complaint with a specific named officer and it would call again tomorrow. The resident emailed on 9 March 2022 requesting the landlord stopped trying to phone him as it was making his “illness worse” and suggested written communication.
The resident emailed the landlords complaint team on 9 March 2022 and expressed his dissatisfaction that he had not had a response to his ongoing 5 complaints other than the above interaction.
The resident emailed the landlord on 2 occasions on 11 March 2022 and continued to detail his comments following its stage 1 response, this was a continuation of the emails he had sent between 12 September 2021 and 23 November 2021.
On 11 March 2022 the landlord emailed the resident about his complaint about 1 of the specific named officers, it apologised for the effect the whole situation was having on the resident. It said it appreciated the frustration caused by having to move items around his property and then being told he had to de-clutter in order for works to go ahead. From the evidence it looked at, it said it suggested the resident was aware that items needed to be de-cluttered and that its member of staff was mindful of the residents health conditions. It apologised for any misunderstanding but explained that the member of staff had just tried to advise of the tenancy conditions and it could not see any evidence to support the residents claims. It did say however it could arrange for another officer to take over the case if he did not want the officer to assist him further. It concluded its email by advising the other complaints, it assumed would be dealt with by the other relevant managers or the complaints team.
The resident emailed the landlord on 22 March 2022 regarding the planned visit on 24 March 2022. He advised he would refuse entry to his property as he had ongoing complaints about the officers scheduled to attend and saw it as “wholly inappropriate” to allow access. He clarified he would allow access, under “certain conditions” to those outside of the ongoing complaints he held. He detailed the conditions as:
1. A clear explanation of the purpose of the visit.
2. A known witness to the inspection to be present.
The resident continued to advise he was focussed on resolving the clutter only, not resolving it to allow access for the repairs.
An internal email dated 23 March 2022 stated that as per the landlords hoarding policy, the resident had refused entry on 3 occasions, and therefore it had no choice but to apply to court for access.
The landlords complaints team emailed the resident on 7 April 2022 following a phone conversation on 25 March 2022 concerning his complaint. The landlord confirmed:
1. The resident had requested his complaint about the roof repair be escalated to stage 2. He advised he had approached the Ombudsman.
2. He was not happy to reduce the items in his home and felt it was not an issue or a breach of the Tenancy Agreement.
3. He thought the contractor would help reorganise his items not throw them away. He wanted to store some of his bulky items but he felt the landlord wanted to move everything out of his home.
4. The roof leaked again in 2022, the resident noticed it came into the bathroom when it rained significantly. The landlord said it would report this for him.
5. It would call the following week to go through how to move forwards with the repairs and the amount of things in the flat.
6. The resident disputed that his home was a fire safety issue and also disputed he was a hoarder.
7. The landlord spoke to the resident again on 7 April 2022.
8. He disputed the accusation that he had broken the tenancy agreement and said he would go to court if the landlord pursued the issue.
9. He said it would cause more harm to move out of his home and said he would create space for the repairs to go ahead.
10. At the end of the call the resident said he would consider a decant if that was what was needed and he would be happy to meet the contractor to understand what was a problem in his home so he could either agree or disagree.
11. The resident confirmed he had raised 5 complaints.
An internal email dated 7 April 2022 said the landlord had spoken with the resident on 2 occasions and he would now consider a decant and talking to the contractor about de-cluttering his property. He had asked the landlord to demonstrate why the property was a fire safety concern. The email also confirmed it was agreed a surveyor would visit the resident to discuss a plan to move forward.
An internal email dated 14 April 2022 stated a stage 2 needed to be raised.
An internal email dated 8 June 2022 confirmed the landlord visited the resident on 7 June 2022. This email suggested some progress had been made by the resident in organising his items but understood some items would need to go into storage whilst the work took place.
Further internal emails were provided up to 28 July 2022, where the landlord confirmed it had sourced storage and just needed to confirm a start date for the works with the resident.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 25 August 2022. Within its response the landlord:
1. Confirmed there was still repairs outstanding at the property.
2. It upheld the residents complaint at stage 1 as it did not carry out the repair to the roof in a reasonable timeframe and it did not communicate well around this repair.
3. It offered £500 for the distress and inconvenience of the roof leak repair and it hoped the resident would accept this by way of an apology for the issue.
4. It accepted the residents comments he had made about the repairs.
5. It had engaged with different teams to try and resolve the repair issues and it understood the resident had found this “distressing”.
6. It was sorry to hear the residents illnesses caused significant disruption to his daily life and advised his illness had been at the forefront of its process.
7. It had investigated the serious allegation of “bullying, behaving aggressively and being abusive”. It concluded its staff followed process and apologised the resident felt that way.
8. It confirmed it had tried to accommodate the residents illnesses and extended the time to allow for him to prepare for the repairs.
9. It clarified it needed a date from the resident to start the repair works.
10. It confirmed it had offered a decant but the resident did not want to move.
11. It confirmed it had offered to hire a secure container to store in the car park, for the resident to store belongings in whilst works take place and its removal team would move the items. It also confirmed that the items would be insured whilst in the container.
12. It clarified the rooms that need repairs and decoration cannot be done at the moment due to the number of items within the property.
13. It said if a date could not be agreed within the next 6 weeks it would start the process to gain access to make the repairs.
14. It concluded and advised that in addition to the £500 offered it would provide payment as a goodwill gesture to insure the residents items whilst in the container.
The resident responded via email on 22 September 2022, within his response he stated he had no response about the complaints he made in February 2022, except a “highly unsatisfactory response” from a manager about 1 of the officers.
The resident sent a subsequent email on 30 September 2022, within this email he stated:
1. the matter about repairs was being discussed with another colleague.
2. Reading the stage 2 response would take time and “he was not likely to be satisfied” after he had briefly looked at it.
3. He noted the landlords sorrow but said it meant very little without a change in behaviour.
4. Since May 2021, the whole matter had caused, and still was causing, significant emotional strain.
The landlord acknowledged the residents email on 5 October 2022 and said it was sorry to hear that he was not well and that he was struggling with the organisation and process to enable it to carry out repairs in his home. This email confirmed as per its stage 2 response it could not put off the repairs any longer and asked the resident to confirm he would give access to carry out the repairs.
On 28 October 2022, the landlords chief executive office confirmed receipt of the residents letter dated 18 October 2022. The resident later chased a response on 10 November 2022.
The landlord emailed the resident on 11 November 2022 and said it would like to offer to further discuss his concerns and try to move matters forward, understand his needs and any further adjustments required to get the works progressed.
The resident responded the same day and said,
1. He was confused as his complaints were not just about the repairs needing to be done, in fact he was in no rush to complete them.
2. The repairs were not urgent now as he was “dealing with the very, very thick black mould”.
3. He had damp on a bedroom wall which he believed to have arisen from the second roof leak he reported in February 2022 and took about 6 months to resolve.
4. He was filling the holes in the plaster with filler he had been provided with previously by the landlord and therefore he would not be required to move out.
5. He would prefer to redecorate himself.
6. His personal items could be moved around his flat to allow carpets to be fitted, which would cost less that the storage proposed.
7. He reiterated his preferred method of contact to be email due to his illness which results in him being “often unconscious, due to sleep or otherwise, during office hours and normal social hours”.
The resident emailed again on 31 December 2022 and advised of “clear evidence of further water ingress” from another roof leak.
In an update to this service the landlord confirmed an appointment was booked for 29 August 2023 to carry out internal plastering repairs. The resident had been advised that he would need to decorate once the walls had dried out.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by adhering to its policies, procedures, and any agreements with the resident, and that the landlord acted reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.
It is recognised that this situation has caused the resident distress as he has experienced multiple leaks into his property over a period of time which have caused internal disrepair. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. However, unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or calculate and award damages.

The landlords response to the residents reports of water ingress into his property.

In accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure of the building, keeping all fixtures and fittings for the supply of services in repair and in proper working order. Once on notice, the landlord is required to carry out the repairs or works it is responsible for within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its obligations under the terms of the tenancy agreement and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is, this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
The landlords repair policy considers non-urgent repairs will be attended to within 20 working days and arranged on a day convenient to the resident. The landlord has acknowledged delays in completing the necessary external repairs. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
In this case, although it is not clear from the records provided exactly when the repairs to the roof took place, the landlord did not dispute that it had not carried out the repairs in a reasonable timeframe. Overall, according to the resident, it took 3 months for the landlord to complete the repairs, which far exceeded its response timeframe. It is not clear from the evidence provided what caused the delay, but the landlord advised it was due to mismanagement internally. However, the landlord should have prioritised any follow-on works and ensured these would have resolved the water ingress into the building. It is evident the delays caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, who reported having to move items out of the way and around his flat. As the landlord was not forthcoming with updates on the progress of the repairs, it failed to reasonably manage the resident’s expectations regarding when the work would be completed. This resulted in the resident chasing the repairs on a number of occasions causing him additional time and effort.
It was appropriate that the landlord recognised the delay in carrying out these repairs, it noted in its stage 1 complaint response the way the repairs were handled would be reviewed to ensure this does not happen in the future. The landlord therefore demonstrated it acted in line with the Ombudsman dispute resolution principles.
It was also appropriate for the landlord to recognise what internal works following the repair to the roof were required. It is not clear when the inspection took place however it can be reasonably concluded that it took place between the repair to the roof and the landlords stage 1 response. The landlord offered redecoration following the internal repairs and included a new carpet as a good will gesture in addition to its offer of £500 for its poor service and lack of communication to the resident. The was fair and proportionate in the circumstance.
The landlord established that it could not expect its contractors to work in the property due to its poor condition and the number of items within it. This was reasonable and in line with the expectations set out in the resident’s tenancy agreement which sets out the resident’s responsibilities with regards to the condition of the property. The landlord is entitled to take action to enforce the terms of the tenancy agreement where it is reasonable and proportionate to do so. However, the landlord also has a hoarding procedure which clearly sets out the steps it should take when dealing with a hoarding issue.
According to its procedure, the landlord should visit the resident to assess the situation using a clutter image rating. If deemed to be a rating of 4 or more this information should be passed to numerous agencies, including the fire service for a home fire safety check. The procedure also says that when a person’s hoarding behaviour poses a risk to health and safety, action is required.
From the evidence provided, it is unclear why the landlord did not follow its procedure fully. No evidence has been seen that a home fire safety check was requested and completed, this would have helped the landlord answer the residents questions as to why it felt his flat was a risk. The landlords focus was evidenced however in trying to support the resident with his items in order to progress the works, which was appropriate as the resident had reported “thick black mould” within the flat.
The landlord attempted to engage with the resident and a contractor to help with the level of clutter for the works to go ahead, the evidence suggests there was a misunderstanding from the offset regarding this contractor and what they would actually do. The landlord noted in August 2021 that the clutter would be a barrier but it was not until 3 November 2021 that it advised the resident, the level of clutter was a breach in his tenancy. This seemed to shock the resident who was obviously not aware or in agreement with this statement, which led to him raising a later complaint about staff conduct. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to be transparent with the resident from the offset and have a clear action plan proposed as to what was required from him in order for the works to progress.
Evidence was provided which showed the landlord was mindful of the residents vulnerabilities prior to notifying him that enforcement action could be taken. This in addition of the offer of funding the contractor to help de-clutter was reasonable action taken by the landlord. The landlord advised the resident if he failed to engage it would consider taking legal action against him, which was in line with its procedure.
The landlord arranged 3 visits to the property, to discuss the clutter in the flat all of which the resident advised access would not be given, the resident gave at least 24 hours notice which is a reasonable amount of notice. The landlords communication whilst trying to organise these visits was very direct and lacked empathy for the resident. The resident had been told his tenancy was at risk and he was described as a hoarder, which he disagreed with and caused him distress, yet the landlord continued with warnings of different enforcement action in its communication with the resident. In an email dated 4 February 2022, the landlord said if the resident refused the second visit, with no good reason, it would press ahead and serve notice on the resident. It said courts took “a very dim view of residents who do not accept support being offered by their housing provider to maintain tenancies”. The language used in this particular correspondence was not appropriate, the landlord should not assume the opinion of the courts and this should not be relayed to the resident in this manner. This would have caused the resident significant distress.
The resident clearly stated, through numerous emails that he disagreed with the term hoarder and that the amount of items in his flat were not a barrier. It is also acknowledged that the resident informed the landlord on every communication how his disabilities impacted on his daily living and communication with the landlord, which should have prompted the landlord to investigate if any other support was required. Evidence was provided that showed, in July 2021, the landlord highlighted internally the resident may require support and later in August 2021 the landlord was aware he was struggling with daily living and would apply for the relevant benefits. No evidence has been seen that showed the landlord question or discuss how the resident was managing to live in his flat and whether any referrals to external agencies would have been appropriate.
The landlord changed its approach to the resident following his refusal of the third proposed visit, this could have been due to the resident pointing out he would allow access but not to the officers who he felt had threatened his tenancy previously. This was positive action which recognised the need to support the resident. However, this came 5 months after the resident had first raised the feeling of intimidation. Given that the resident repeatedly expressed his deep distress including that he felt bullied and threatened and raised a formal complaint, the delay was unreasonable and caused significant distress to the resident.
In summary, the Ombudsman recognises that this was a complex case for the landlord to resolve. It evidenced that it attempted to fulfil its repair obligations, acknowledged its failings and offered reasonable redress for this. It demonstrated that its initial focus was on supporting the resident with the clutter in his flat which was reasonable. The landlord offered to
1. redecorate the areas following repair,
2. provide and fit a new carpet,
3. compensate the resident £500 in acknowledgement of its failure to resolve the water ingress in a timely manner,
4. and fund a contractor to help with the clutter.
Although its attempt to support the resident seems to have tainted the overall objective of doing so. Its shift in focus to potential enforcement and some of the language used caused the resident significant distress. This demonstrated that the landlord lacked insight and empathy into the resident’s hoarding behaviour. Its approach also suggested a lack of understanding that hoarding is recognised a mental health disorder, as stated in its hoarding procedure. Evidence has not been seen of any external referrals being made as per its hoarding procedure. It is for the reasons above that a finding of service failure has been made.

The landlords response to the residents concerns regarding staff conduct.

It is the Ombudsmans role to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint about its staff conduct, and took proportionate action based on the information available. For example, the landlord would generally be expected to conduct interviews and gather evidence from all parties, making an informed decision based on its findings. For staff conduct complaints, landlords should carry out an independent investigation so that it can reach an informed and therefore fair and reasonable decision on the complaint raised.
The landlord responded to this part of the resident’s complaint in its stage 2 complaint response, it advised that his allegations were serious and had been investigated. Evidence was seen showing 1 manager contacted the resident following his complaints about staff conduct in February 2022 and gave a detailed account of the investigation, but this manager only responded about 1 member of staff and assumed the rest of the residents complaint would be picked up elsewhere. Evidence has not been seen that the other staff conduct complaint was addressed with the resident in anyway which is not appropriate.
It would have been appropriate for the landlord to discuss the residents complaint with the named officers and advise him it had done so, even if its conclusion was not to uphold his complaint. Although it would have been inappropriate to divulge the details of these discussions to the resident, detailing the steps it had taken to investigate his concerns would have assured the resident his concerns were taken seriously. The landlord did not act in a reasonable manner in this situation as no evidence of any investigation has been seen into part of his complaint, which could be a record keeping failure, but nevertheless is a serious failure by the landlord. A landlord is expected to keep clear records of discussions involving staff conduct in order to ensure conduct can be monitored and action taken accordingly when required.
The landlord disputed this part of the residents complaint and advised staff had been found to follow procedure, yet it failed to provide evidence of the full investigation upon which it based its findings on. This is a serious failure by the landlord and a finding of maladministration has been made.

The landlords complaint handling.

The landlords initial handling of the residents stage 1 complaint was in line with its policy timeframes and offered reasonable redress. It demonstrated that it took the time to look into the residents reports and acknowledged its failings. Its stage 1 response noted it would review how it had handled the repairs to learn from its mistakes and ensure this situation did not happen again, which is in line with the dispute resolution principles.
It is noted that the resident, due to his disabilities, preferred email communication, a substantial amount of emails were provided as evidence for this investigation from both the resident and landlord. Although it is noted that the resident sent multiple, email trails into the landlord, the landlord should have filed these on its management system with its response recorded alongside. This way the landlord could have demonstrated that it was managing its communications with the resident effectively.
Following the landlords stage 1 response on 27 August 2021, the resident emailed the landlord with comments of dissatisfaction between 12 September 2021 and 11 March 2022. Although this series of emails was protracted and interlinked with the ongoing substantive issue, a landlord is expected to have a clear process when it comes to complaint management and have a person or team to take responsibility for complaint handling. The landlord emailed the resident on 28 October 2021 and requested contact to discuss the complaint but no evidence has been seen if further contact was made for some time which is not appropriate. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to raise a stage 2 complaint after the first email from the resident in which he stated he was not satisfied with the response given. This would have enabled the landlord to monitor progress of the complaint alongside the substantive issue.
Furthermore the resident sent 5 separate emails in February 2022 with additional complaints he wished to be raised. It is good practise for a landlord to add in additional points of a complaint during its complaints process if the issues are similar in nature. In this case it is not clear what the landlords response to this was, it acknowledged 1 of these emails and advised a new stage 1 complaint had been logged, giving a separate reference number. No evidence of further acknowledgements of the other emails has been seen. To confuse matters further, evidence was provided to show a manager contacting the resident to discuss and respond to part of his complaint about a specific officer. This demonstrated that the landlord did not have measures in place to handle complaints which crossed over multiple departments which is not reasonable. Landlords are expected to work operationally in a cohesive and effective manner in order to provide a streamlined service to its residents.
No evidence has been seen to demonstrate the landlord acknowledged a stage 2 escalation request from the resident until 14 April 2022, when an internal note stated it was required. No evidence has been seen to show this was communicated to the resident and therefore manage his expectations as to what would be looked at within stage 2 and when he could expect a response. This would have added to the residents frustration with the landlord.
Although the landlord acknowledged a separate stage 1 complaint was logged in February 2022 following 1 of the emails from the resident about a further leak, no evidence has been seen of any response to this and it is not clear from the evidence provided or the landlords stage 2 response if it included this complaint at stage 2 as it was similar in nature to the initial complaint. Nevertheless it is not appropriate for the landlord to not communicate further with the resident after logging a stage 1 complaint, especially when the resident had stated he would give full detail when contacted. It is reasonable to conclude, as the resident has stated he had not received a response and believed this had been considered at stage 2 that it was considered. This could have been a record keeping issue but still is a serious failure by the landlord.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and details of lessons learned) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The Ombudsman will also consider the resulting distress and inconvenience and the resident’s circumstances will be taken into account.
The landlord did acknowledge its service failures of carrying out its roof repairs in its complaint responses, it is not disputed that these were not timely and offered redress for this. The landlord did not consider the time and trouble experienced by the resident in having to email the landlord his continued expression of dissatisfaction with the landlord and the lack of acknowledgement of his complaints. It failed to communicate clearly and in line with its policy to the resident what complaints would be considered at stage 2. It failed to acknowledge its delay in escalating the resident’s complaint to stage 2, therefore it offered no redress in recognition of the failure to escalate the complaint in good time. As it failed to consider this, the amount offered overall was not proportionate to the impact of its service failure in its complaint handling and its delays in escalating the complaint. Taken the above into consideration a finding of severe maladministration has been made for the landlords complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the residents request for compensation for damaged personal items is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the residents reports of water ingress into his property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the residents concerns regarding staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord evidenced that it attempted to fulfil its repair obligations, acknowledged its failings and offered reasonable redress. It demonstrated that its initial focus was on supporting the resident with the clutter in his flat, although its attempt to support the resident seems to have tainted the overall objective of doing so. Its shift in focus to potential enforcement and some of the language used caused the resident significant distress. This demonstrated that the landlord lacked insight and empathy into the resident’s hoarding behaviour. Evidence has not been seen of any external referrals being made as per its hoarding procedure.
The landlord disputed this part of the residents complaint about staff conduct and advised staff had been found to follow procedure, yet it failed to provide evidence of the full investigation, which it based its findings on. Evidence was provided for some of the investigation in relation to 1 officer, but not the other.
The landlord did acknowledge its service failures in carrying out its roof repairs in its complaint responses, it is not disputed that these were not timely and it offered redress for this. The landlord did not consider the time and trouble experienced by the resident however, in having to email the landlord his continued expression of dissatisfaction and the lack of acknowledgement of his complaints. It failed to communicate clearly and in line with its policy to the resident what complaints would be considered at stage 2. It failed to acknowledge its delay in escalating the resident’s complaint to stage 2, therefore it offered no redress in recognition of the failure to escalate the complaint in good time. As it failed to consider this, the amount offered overall was not proportionate to the impact of its service failure in its complaint handling and its delays in escalating the complaint. Taken the above into consideration a finding of severe maladministration has been made for the landlords complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within the next 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for a senior director to send a written apology for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £100 for the service failure identified in this report in its handling of the residents reports of leaks.
3. Pay the resident £250 for the service failure identified in this report in its handling of the residents concerns of staff conduct.
4. Pay the resident £750 for the distress, frustration, time and trouble caused by its poor management of the residents complaint.
This amount is in addition to the landlord’s previous offer of £500 for compensation related to this complaint.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must initiate and complete a strategic management review of this case, identifying learning opportunities and produce an improvement plan that must be shared with the Ombudsman outlining at minimum its review findings in respect of:
1. Its intention to put in place an additional oversight arrangement that ensures it works cohesively between departments to provide a uniformed response to residents complaints which cross over multiple departments ensuring all points of a residents complaint are addressed.
2. Its intention to ensure that complaint procedures are followed and residents are provided with an acknowledgement and estimated timescale for a response where there are likely to be delays. This should include focus on the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
The landlord should confirm to this service evidence of compliance regarding these orders within the timescales given above.