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

Hyde Housing Association Limited (202112886)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112886

Hyde Housing Association Limited

14 December 2023


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 the resident’s reports that he was without a gas and electricity supply.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant and the tenancy began on 2 March 2009. The resident lives in a one bedroom ground-floor flat. The landlord recorded on its systems that the resident has physical disabilities. The resident confirmed he suffers from arthritis of the spine and he is also a pensioner.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says that ‘emergency repairs’ are attended to within four hours and to make safe within 24 hours. Examples of emergency repairs include complete loss of gas, heating, electric and blocked boiler flues. ‘Anytime repairs’ are to be attended to within 20 working days and are repairs that are not an emergency. The policy also states that if there are any delays to attending the property the contractor must keep the resident informed via phone call and text message and give an estimated time of arrival.

Summary of events

  1. The resident said that his gas and electricity was disrupted in March 2021 and that he reported this to his landlord, although the landlord does not have a record of this. The landlord’s notes show that its contractors attended the resident’s property on 7 April 2021 for a boiler break down, but found no issues as the fuse spur had been switched off. The heating and hot water was working when the contractor left. None of the repair notes, contact notes, nor boiler contractor notes say when the resident reported the fault.
  2. On 13 April 2021, the resident reported that his electrics were not working and that his fuse box was sparking. The landlord attempted to visit on 16 April 2021, but the notes show the contractor could not gain access to the property. The resident then informed the landlord that the electricity had been restored around 23 April 2021.
  3. The landlord’s contractor’s notes show that the resident reported having no hot water on 19 April 2021. On 20 April 2021, the resident’s representative called the landlord and said that the resident had not had hot water for seven weeks and that he was 67 years old and suffering with arthritis. The representative said that the engineer had failed to turn up on two previous occasions.
  4. On 26 April 2021, the resident’s neighbour called to say that the engineer had not turned up again to an appointment. The engineer said that they visited on 21 April 2021, but were unable to gain access to the property. The engineer took a picture of the resident’s front door. Another appointment was booked for the next day between 8.30am – 9.30am.
  5. On 27 April 2021, the resident’s representative called again to say that the engineer had not turned up again. The agent advised that the engineer attended at 8.34am, but there was no access. The operative said that the engineer had taken pictures of the door which was red and the door number was clearly visible. The same engineer had visited the property previously and had gained entry so they knew the property. A neighbour called on behalf of the resident on 27 April 2021 to say that the gas heating needed to be restored and asked for an appointment to be made.
  6. The contractor said it attended on 27 April and 28 April 2021, but could not get access to the resident’s property on each occasion. The resident said that no one showed up for the appointments. The landlord has provided photos that its engineer took of the resident’s front door on each visit. The call logs do not show any further contact by phone or email until 7 June 2021; however, the repair notes show that a job was raised in May 2021.
  7. The resident contacted the landlord on 26 May 2021 to say he had no hot water coming from his taps. The landlord’s repair records show that this repair was completed on 22 June 2021. However, in regard to this date, there are conflicting accounts between the landlords records, the contractors records and the resident’s representatives of when the repair took place. The landlord’s contractor’s notes show that the resident reported not having hot water on this date, but provides no further information. Whilst, the resident’s representative confirmed a repair took place on 22 June 2021. As mentioned above, the landlord’s notes show that a repair was completed on this date, but the landlord confirmed to this Service that an appointment was raised on 22 June 2021 and the engineer attended on 23 June 2021.
  8. On 23 June 2021, the contractor notes said that an engineer attended, but could not gain access to the resident’s property. On 26 June 2021, the contractor attended and found the filling loop had been left open. The engineer tested the boiler and noted it was working. The resident told this Service that his gas central heating was restored after three months. The landlord has told this Service that the issue from 26 June 2021 was not due to a repair being required; however, the Ombudsman had asked for further details about this repair which have not been forthcoming.
  9. The resident’s representative also wrote to the landlord and said that the resident had previously been harassed by his neighbours and that there had been disputes with the neighbours previously about issues with the electric and gas supply. The representative said that they ‘would not be surprised’ if the neighbours were responsible for disrupting the electric and gas supply to the resident’s property. The letter was not dated and therefore it is not known when the resident’s representative informed the landlord of this.
  10. On 15 July 2021, an engineer visited the resident regarding a leak that had been reported. The source of the leak was a washing machine connection. During the visit it was established there were no leaks with the heating system as it held pressure.
  11. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 27 July 2021, for neglecting his issues with his electricity and gas supply which he claimed had been disrupted since March 2021. The resident said there was an issue with the connection which according to his gas provider was the responsibility of his landlord, however, the landlord had not contacted him in response to this information.
  12. The landlord provided its stage one response on 11 November 2021, which said the following:
    1. That the complaint was not upheld and it did not believe it had failed in the service it provided; however, it acknowledged the delay in dealing with the complaint and offered £50 compensation.
    2. In response to complaints about his current boiler and a request by the resident for a new boiler to be fitted, the landlord explained a new boiler was fitted in 2021 and another replacement would not be fitted. The landlord had attempted to make contact with the resident’s representative regarding ongoing issues he was having with his current boiler, but had no response to messages it had left regarding the case.
    3. The evidence it had reviewed from its contractors showed that there were no issues with the resident’s boiler.
    4. The resident had complained to the landlord that someone had tampered with his meter and it had to be replaced by his energy provider. The resident was unhappy that the landlord had not attended the meter quicker. The landlord informed the resident that the electric meter and any issues with it were the responsibility of the energy provider that installed it.
  13. The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage two on 29 November 2021, as the resident wanted the landlord to take responsibility for the problems with the gas and electric supply that he had complained about.
  14. The landlord provided its stage two response on 10 January 2022, which said the following:
    1. It upheld the complaint and said it was awarding a further £100 on top of the £50 previously awarded at stage one for delays in how it handled the complaint.
    2. It had checked its records and there were no service failures. It said there were some discrepancies between the landlord’s contractors version of events and the resident’s, particularly in regards to the missed appointments.
    3. There was not enough effort made to support the resident. It said that the resident’s neighbour and representative contacted the landlord several times between April and June 2021, to try and get an update on what was happening with the heating and hot water. The landlord said that whilst these services were restored, this did not reflect the true experience of the resident.
    4. It acknowledged it had been difficult for it to conduct the investigation as the resident had a different version of events to other evidence it had gathered. The landlord recognised the resident had concerns about his neighbours and reported they had previously tampered with his gas and electricity supply. The landlord confirmed its anti-social behaviour (ASB) team had been in contact with the resident to resolve the situation.
    5. It identified learning and improvement from the complaint and stated that staff training has been carried out on record keeping and staff had been reminded of the importance of maintaining accurate and up to date records and reviewing records when taking phone calls. The landlord said that it also spoke to its contractor about the missed appointments and poor communication the resident received and reinforced the service levels it expected.

 

 

  1. The landlord sent the resident a letter on 27 October 2023, increasing the level of compensation to £400. The landlord said that the increase was to compensate the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused when considering his disability and how this would have impacted him further. Furthermore, the landlord apologised and said it could have taken more time to support and empathise with the resident’s situation and it could have escalated matters to ensure action was taken sooner.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident maintained that the issues affecting his home had a negative impact on his health. It is beyond the remit of this Service to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing as these matters are more suitable to be dealt with through a personal injury claim. As such, the Ombudsman will not consider this aspect of the resident’s complaint. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says that ‘emergency repairs’ are attended to within 4 hours and to make safe within 24 hours. Emergency repairs include complete loss of gas, heating and electricity. The resident has said that his gas and electrics were down from March 2021 and he reported this to his landlord; however it would appear that the landlord did not attend until 7 April 2021 for the gas and the electricity was not checked until 13 April 2021.
  3. There are no definitive records of when the loss of gas and electric were reported, only that contractors attended on 7 April 2021 for the gas supply issue and 13 April 2021 for the electrical supply issue. The landlord is unable to substantiate whether it met its repair timescales due to poor record keeping. Given the resident states he reported faults in March, there is a service failure on the part of the landlord in that it is unable to account for how it discharged its obligations to a vulnerable tenant, which was to the detriment of the resident on this occasion.
  4. The resident has said that his energy provider came out to inspect the situation and told him that the issue was for his landlord to resolve; however, it is not possible to confirm this from the information provided. The landlord’s notes show that when it did attended on 7 April 2021, no faults were found with the gas supply or boiler, but that instead it found the fuse spur had been switched off. The boiler was checked and the heating and hot water were working.
  5. With regards to the electricity, the landlord’s notes show that it attempted to visit on 13 April 2021, but the operative was asked to return on 16 April 2021. When it returned on that date it could not gain entry. The notes said that the resident advised that his electrics were working again a few days later. As such, and based on the limited and conflicting information, the landlord appears to have acted appropriately as it checked the boiler and heating and found they worked and the issues with the electric were resolved without the landlord’s assistance.
  6. The resident’s account of what happened differs from the landlord’s contractors, particularly in regard to the gas and heating. The landlord’s notes show that an operative attended several times in April and once in June 2021, but could not gain access to the property. The resident said he waited for the appointments, but the operative did not attend. The landlord has therefore said that it acted appropriately, however, it did not contact the resident in this period to check why four appointments had been missed. The landlord has provided photos of the resident’s front door which it said its contractor took in April 2021, to show it attended.
  7. Given the amount of calls from the resident’s neighbour and representative in April 2021, who said that the operatives had failed to attend, It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have contacted the resident to check that he was ok. Particularly, as there had been so many appointments supposedly missed and the landlord knew the resident was vulnerable. There was a lack of clear action taken by the landlord and the situation would have been very frustrating and inconvenient for the resident.
  8. The landlord’s repairs policy also says that if there are any delays to attending the property, the contractor must keep the resident informed via phone call and text message and give an estimated time of arrival. There’s no evidence that this happened, and the resident has said that the contractor did not turn up. If the contractor could not gain entry, then they should have tried to contact the resident as they would have had his details. Therefore, there was a service failure here by the landlord.
  9. In the stage two response the landlord accepted that the resident’s neighbours and friends had tried to contact the landlord several times between April and June 2021 to try and find out what was happening. It also accepted that it did not support the resident as well as it could have done in this period. The landlord was not pro-active with its communication and could have done more to resolve the matter or find out what had happened.
  10. The landlord was also aware that the resident had a disability and was a pensioner and therefore it should have ensured that it gave him the appropriate support applicable to these vulnerabilities. The resident has said that he was affected by the cold, particularly given his condition. The landlord did not do enough to support the resident, despite knowing that he was vulnerable and therefore there was a service failure by the landlord here.
  11. The resident said he had been harassed by one of his neighbours and believed that they may have interfered with his gas and electric supply. In the stage two response, the landlord said that its ASB team had been in contact with the resident to find out more details. This was a reasonable action taken by the landlord to try and investigate whether the resident’s neighbour had been involved; however, this intervention by the landlord could have been instigated sooner had it contacted the resident to support him.
  12. The resident and landlord’s version of events have differed and the landlord’s poor record keeping has not helped the situation. The landlord also confirmed that further staff training had been carried out on record keeping and staff had been reminded of the importance of maintaining accurate and up to date records and reviewing records when taking phone calls. The landlord said that it also spoke to its contractor about the missed appointments and poor communication the resident received and reinforced the service levels it expected.
  13. Whilst these were reasonable actions taken by the landlord and in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to learn from outcomes of complaints, it shows that the landlord was not satisfied with the record keeping of its staff or the service of its contractors. The landlord’s record keeping also meant that it was unable to know the full situation with the repairs that the resident had reported.
  14. The notes from 26 June 2021, (the date the resident has said the gas issue was resolved) say the contractor attended and found the filling loop had been left open. The engineer tested the boiler and noted it was working. When this Service asked for further information regarding the repair, the only additional information provided was that this ‘was not due to a repair being required’. This provides additional evidence that record keeping across the landlord’s interactions with the resident lacked the detail which was required to provide a full and transparent record of events when examined retrospectively.
  15. The landlord initially offered £50 for the delay in acknowledging the complaint at stage one, as it took an extra three months to respond. The level of compensation was reasonable given the delay and the inconvenience experienced by the resident. The complaint was answered at stage two within the correct time scales.
  16. The landlord then awarded a further £100 compensation having acknowledged it did not support the resident well enough in this period. In summary, the landlord did not contact the resident after its contractor could not gain access on four occasions, it failed to support the resident appropriately despite being aware he was vulnerable, there was poor record keeping throughout its interactions and that the resident’s representative tried several times to contact the landlord for an update. Therefore, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that £100 is not enough compensation in the circumstances. The resident would likely have suffered a significant amount of distress and inconvenience by the situation and in raising his subsequent complaint.
  17. In October 2023, and after the completion of its internal complaint process, the landlord increased the level of compensation to £400 in total. The Ombudsman has determined this offer to be fair and proportionate to the failings identified in this report. The offer is in line with what this Service would have offered as it takes into account the distress and inconvenience the resident has suffered.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman Service finds maladministration with regards to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that he was without gas and electricity for some time.

Reasons

  1. The landlord has accepted that it failed to support the resident during the period of his complaint. It also confirmed that his friends and neighbours had tried several times to contact it during this period. The landlord’s version of events differs from the residents and although the landlord has spoken to its staff about the importance of maintaining accurate record keeping, it’s clear that its record keeping could have been better.
  2. Whilst there is no evidence that the landlord was responsible for the issues with the gas and electric supply, it has not demonstrated that it always followed its repairs policy. It knew the resident was vulnerable and that its contractors could not gain entry. The landlord could have tried to contact the resident to offer support and visited the property sooner. The landlord was not pro-active and did not consider the distress and inconvenience the resident would have suffered.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident the £400 compensation it offered on 27 October 2023 within four weeks of the date of this report.
  2. Within eight weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to review its repairs record keeping processes in line with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) and create an action plan to show how it will ensure that its repairs logs contain accurate and timely information.
  3. The landlord is ordered to write to this Service within four weeks from the date of this report to explain the lessons learned from this complaint, particularly in regards to how it treats its vulnerable residents to ensure they receive the support they need in the future.
  4. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance within the timescales set out above.