Hastoe Housing Association Limited (202336879)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202336879

Hastoe Housing Association Limited

11 December 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 the residents:

1. Reports of repairs to the bathroom.
2. Concerns regarding the maintenance of the neighbouring garden.
3. Reports of a rat infestation.

2.             The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:

1. Complaint handling.
2. Record keeping.

Background

3.             The resident is an assured tenant and has lived in the bungalow with her husband since August 2016. The property is in the middle of a row of 3. The landlord said it has physical and mental health vulnerabilities recorded for the household.

4.             The resident submitted a complaint on 2 September 2022. She was dissatisfied that:

1. there was mould build up in the bathroom due to the extractor fans not working
2. there was an ongoing rat infestation in the loft
3. the landlord had neglected the garden of the neighbouring property which was causing a slip hazard for the resident

5.             The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 7 October 2022. A copy of that complaint response has not been provided to this service.

6.             The complaint was escalated on 19 October 2023. The resident remained dissatisfied that the repairs had not been completed.

7.             The landlord provided its final complaint response on 17 November 2023. It:

1. advised an inspection had been completed to look at all the outstanding repairs and the work that had been assigned to a contractor
2. apologised for its failure to follow the complaint policy, the time taken to complete the repairs, and the multiple calls made by the resident over a 2-year period
3. committed to following the repairs through to completion
4. offered £700 compensation for the complaint handling and time taken to complete the repairs
5. identified learning to improve future service delivery regarding repairs and complaint handling

8.             The landlord has confirmed the bathroom repairs were completed on 10 November 2023, the pest control works were completed on 3 May 2024, and the ventilation system was resolved on 15 April 2024. The resident has confirmed this, but she has told this Service she is experiencing intermittent problems with the ventilation system. The landlord agreed to cut the overhanging hedge in the neighbouring garden, however this was delayed due to a disagreement between the neighbours and nesting season. The landlord has confirmed a site inspection has been arranged for 4 December 2024 to check the work to the tree has been completed satisfactorily.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9.             The resident has referred to the impact the ongoing issues had on the health of herself and her husband along with damage to personal belongings. Although we can consider the impact the situation has had on the resident and whether the landlord acted reasonably, we cannot determine liability for damage to health or belongings. These are matters better suited to an insurance claim or court. Any compensation offer will be assessed in line with our remedies guidance. Should the resident wish to pursue these matters further, she should seek legal advice.

10.        The resident has stated some of the issues have been ongoing for up to 8 years. In accordance with paragraph 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. As such, this investigation will focus on events from January 2022 to 17 November 2023 (the date of the final response).

Reports of repairs to the bathroom

11.        The landlord’s repair policy states it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 10 calendar days, routine repairs within 28 calendar days or 90 calendar days, depending on the nature of repair.

12.        The tenancy agreement states the landlord is responsible for the heating and hot water systems, repairing drains and external pipes.

13.        The Ombudsman expects landlords to complete repairs within a reasonable time. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances and the nature of the repair. Where there is a delay in completing repairs, the Ombudsman expects landlords to be proactive in:

1. communicating the cause of delays to residents
2. explaining to residents what it intends to do about the delays
3. identifying what it can do to mitigate the impact of delays on residents

14.        The resident reported a problem with the Mechanical Ventilation Heat Recovery unit (MVHR) in the bathroom on 5 January 2022, and a leak from the unit on 25 January 2022. The landlord carried out an inspection on 1 February 2022 and the MVHR was condemned, which was 27 days later. This was appropriate, as it was consistent with the landlord’s policy.

15.        There is no evidence that the landlord took any action to repair or replace the MVHR following this. This was not appropriate, as it was not consistent with the landlord’s obligation to repair as set out in the tenancy agreement. This was a significant failure by the landlord.

16.        In the absence of any repairs, the resident raised a complaint on 2 September 2022. This should not have been necessary. In that complaint, the resident also reported that the bathroom was affected by mould.

17.        The evidence indicates that a new MVHR was installed on 19 October 2022, which was 8 months after the previous unit was condemned. There is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that this delay was either reasonable or unavoidable. This was a failure by the landlord.

18.        On 19 October 2022, the resident reported that the new MVHR was working but that no action had been taken to treat the mould on the bathroom ceiling. The evidence indicates that the resident asked the landlord for an update on the repairs to the bathroom ceiling on several occasions between December 2022 and January 2023.

19.        The complaint was escalated on 19 October 2023 after the resident said the repairs were still outstanding. She reported that mould had returned in the bathroom following a previous treatment. Due to the lack of adequate records, it is not possible to verify:

1. what mould treatment was carried out by the landlord or when
2. whether the time taken to do so was reasonable

20.        In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord:

1. confirmed the bathroom repairs had been completed and acknowledged and apologised for the time taken and time spent by the resident chasing these
2. confirmed a contractor would redecorate the water-stained ceilings
3. confirmed it would post inspect the work once completed
4. offered £700 compensation for the time taken to complete the repairs and the delay in the complaint response

21.        The evidence indicates that the landlord redecorated the bathroom ceiling on 10 November 2023, which was 7 days before its final complaint response.

22.        In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s offer was reasonable. This is because compensation offered was consistent with this Service’s guidance on remedies where there has been a failure that has caused an adverse impact on a resident.

23.        Considering all the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress which satisfactorily resolves the resident’s complaint, in that the landlord:

1. unreasonably delayed in completing the repairs to the bathroom
2. acknowledged these failures in its complaint responses, apologised for them, and demonstrated learning from the mistake
3. made an offer of compensation which was consistent with this Service’s guidance on remedies

Garden maintenance

24.        The tenancy agreement states the resident is responsible for keeping the garden tidy and free from weeds, keeping the grass short, and hedges trimmed.

25.        It is noted the resident’s neighbour is also a resident of the landlord, therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the same terms apply to the neighbour.

26.        On 2 September 2022 the resident reported her concerns regarding the neighbour’s garden to the landlord. She advised that the garden was overgrown, and it was impacting the fence backing on to the alleyway. When the leaves fell, it caused a slip hazard. It is not known whether this footpath is the responsibility of the landlord. the local authority, or another third party.

27.        The landlord agreed to work with the neighbour and arranged to visit to the property. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was reasonable. However, it would have been better if the landlord had then communicated the outcome of this to the resident at the time. There is no evidence that it did so.

28.        In December 2022, the resident again advised of ongoing problems with the trees in the neighbours garden and that falling leaves were causing a slip hazard on the public footpath.

29.        In response, the landlord carried out an inspection on 27 January 2023. That inspection identified that:

1. the neighbour’s hedges were well trimmed
2. some trees were overhanging
3. it was the neighbour’s responsibility to cut back the trees

30.        Due to the lack of adequate records, it is not possible to determine what action the landlord took regarding the trees in the neighbour’s garden following this inspection or if it provided any update to the resident. This was unreasonable.

31.        By 1 November 2023, the resident again told the landlord the garden had not been addressed and that leaves were causing a slip hazard. Due to a lack of evidence, it is not known what was discussed with the neighbour and if the landlord took the appropriate action to address this. However, the evidence does indicate that the landlord was aware at or around this time that the neighbour had refused to cut back the trees.

32.        Furthermore, there is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that the landlord informed the resident about what action it was taking at this time, or why. This was a failure by the landlord.

33.        Due to the lack of adequate records, it is not known what action was taken by the landlord in relation to the overhanging trees between November 2023 and September 2024. Therefore, there is no evidence that the landlord kept the resident informed about the action it was taking, or when. This was a failure by the landlord.

34.        What is known is that by 13 September 2024, the landlord had decided to undertake the works itself. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was reasonable for the landlord to undertake the work itself once it became apparent that the neighbour would not do it.

35.        Due to the lack of adequate records, it is not known if the trees were cut back or when.

36.        Considering all the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of concerns regarding the maintenance of the neighbouring garden. The initial response was appropriate, but there is evidence of poor record keeping, a lack of communication, a failure to follow up on the work agreed. In line with remedies guidance of this Service, an order of compensation has been made. The order reflects the landlord’s lack of acknowledgement to the service failures highlighted in this report.

Reports of a rat infestation

37.        The landlord’s website confirms it is the resident’s responsibility to deal with pest problems including vermin such as mice and rats. It states once the pests have been removed, the resident should contact the landlord so it can arrange to block any entry holes.

38.        On 2 September 2022, the resident complained about an ongoing rat infestation in the loft. The landlord visited the resident on 16 September 2022. Due to the lack of adequate records, it is not possible to verify:

1. what the landlord identified, if anything
2. whether any repairs were completed
3. if the time taken to complete the repairs was reasonable

39.        In February 2023 the resident sent photographs of holes in the brickwork to the landlord. On the same day, the landlord approved an order for a pest control company to start a 3-month programme of visits to the 3 neighbouring properties. The landlord said it would allow the completion of the programme before doing any further disruptive work to drains. It suggested a special investigation may be needed as it was possible the old drainage pre-construction could be the issue. This was a reasonable approach and showed the landlord was taking a proactive approach to resolving the problem, but there is no evidence the landlord communicated its plan to the resident. This is a failure of the landlord.

40.        The programme started on 13 February 2023 however the landlord has not evidenced what the findings were, or if any remedial action was taken. Therefore, there is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude if the landlord acted in line with its repair obligations.

41.        The resident contacted the landlord again on 30 October 2023 to confirm the rats were in the loft. The landlord’s records show an order was raised on 10 November 2023 to set bait in loft, but there is no evidence to confirm if it monitored the activity against the bait. This was unreasonable as it did not show the landlord was looking to provide a customer-focussed resolution.

42.        In the final complaint response, the landlord confirmed it had engaged with a contractor who would investigate the source of the rat infestation. The evidence shows the landlord continued to work with the resident. The resident confirmed to this Service that the work was completed in May 2024 and to date she has not experienced any further activity.

43.        In summary the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of a rat infestation. This is because:

1. there was a lack of evidence from the landlord to show it responded to the reports and investigated the claims from the resident regarding the root cause
2. the landlord did not acknowledge or address the time taken to resolve the problem
3. the landlord did not offer any redress or identify any learning from the service provided.

44.        As such, an order of compensation has been made. This is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance and reflects the landlord’s lack of acknowledgement to the failures identified within this report.

The complaint

45.        The landlord operated a 2-stage complaints policy. The policy states the landlord will provide a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. The landlord will provide a stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.

46.        The resident raised her complaint on 2 September 2022. The landlord acknowledged receipt the same day.

47.        On 15 September 2022, the landlord contacted the resident to advise of a delay in the response. The Ombudsman has not seen the correspondence that was sent to the resident. It is therefore unknown if the landlord explained the reason behind the delay, or if it provided a revised response date. This was a significant failure by the landlord.

48.        The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 7 October 2022, which was 24 working days after the resident raised their complaint. This was not appropriate, as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy. Furthermore, there is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that this delay was reasonable. These were failures by the landlord.

49.        The landlord has not provided a copy of the stage 1 response to this Service. Therefore, there is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was reasonable, appropriate, or consistent with the Ombudsman’s expectations.

50.        The resident escalated her complaint on 19 October 2023.

51.        The landlord provided its final complaint response on 17 November 2023. This was 21 working days later and was just outside of the timescale to respond. This was not appropriate, as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy. However, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that this was unlikely to have caused any serious detriment to the resident.

52.        The landlord had identified all the issues raised by the resident in the escalation request, therefore it ought to have provided a response to each, including any findings and actions. It was therefore unreasonable that the landlord did not include a response to the resident’s concern regarding the neighbours overgrown garden. This was a failure by the landlord.

53.        In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged the delay in providing its complaint responses, apologised, and offered £700 compensation. The landlord did not explain how it had calculated this figure, and therefore it is not known what proportion was offered for its complaint handling failures.

54.        In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s offer of redress was reasonable. This is because the landlord’s offer of redress was consistent with this Service’s guidance on remedies. Had the landlord not offered this compensation, it is unlikely the Ombudsman would have ordered compensation that was in excess of this total for failures identified in relation to the landlord’s handling of the repairs, and its handling of the associated complaint.

55.        Considering all the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress which satisfactorily resolves the resident’s complaint. This is because the offer made was consistent with this Service’s guidance on remedies.

Record keeping

56.        The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.

57.        It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records, which has impacted this Service’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a failure by the landlord and contributed to the other failures identified in this report.

58.        Therefore, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was maladministration by the landlord in its record keeping.

Determination

59.        In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of repairs to the bathroom.

60.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of concerns regarding the maintenance of the neighbouring garden.

61.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of a rat infestation.

62.        In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

63.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

64.        Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:

1. write a letter of apology to the resident, which should address the failures identified within this report and confirm the improvements to prevent recurrence
2. Pay the resident a total of £800 in compensation, made up of the following:
   1. £300 for the time taken to complete the repairs
   2. £100 for the time taken to complete the work in the neighbours garden and the time, distress, and inconvenience to the resident
   3. £300 for the failures associated with the rat infestation and time, trouble, and inconvenience to the resident
   4. £100 for the complaint handling failures identified in this report
   5. this is inclusive of the compensation previously offered by the landlord. Therefore, the landlord may deduct from this total any compensation it may already have paid in relation to this complaint
   6. the payment should be made directly to the resident and not offset against any debt that may be owed. The landlord must provide this Service with confirmation of the payments

65.        Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should confirm to this Service if the work agreed to the neighbour’s garden has been completed. It should address and confirm the completion date for any outstanding work.

Recommendations

66.        As the resident has informed this Service she is continuing to experience intermittent problems with the MVHR, the landlord should consider inspecting the system to identify if any further repairs are required. If so, it should then make the necessary arrangements to complete the repairs within a reasonable timeframe.

67.        In May 2023, this Service published a Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord complete a self-assessment against the recommendations within this report, if it has not already done so.