Hyde Housing Association Limited (201913216)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201913216

Hyde Housing Association Limited

18 May 2021

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 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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of problems with heating, hot water, and water leaks in his property.

Background and summary of events

Policies and procedures

As per the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for the following:
1. Drains, gutters and external pipes.
2. Interior walls, floors, ceilings and plasterwork, but not including internal painting and decoration.
3. Equipment provided by it for heating and hot water, including basins, sinks, water pipes and waste pipes.
The tenancy agreement also confirms that the resident is entitled to compensation if the landlord fails to carry out a repair within set times “without good reason”, and if it fails to meet certain conditions.
As per the landlord’s complaints and compensation policy, it expects to provide a full response to complaints at both stages of its complaints procedure within 20 working days. It reserves the right to take “a reasonable amount of additional time to investigate a complaint at each stage where the issues are complex”.
The landlord’s complaints and compensation policy also confirms that compensation payments may be offered in recognition of: its failure to deliver a service to the advertised standard, and in recognition of time, trouble, distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
The landlord’s complaints and compensation policy also confirms that it “may decline to investigate a complaint about a specific incident or service failure that occurred over six months prior to the complaint being made”.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, residing in a one-bedroom, ground–floor flat.
The landlord has acknowledged that the resident has experienced multiple leaks, and its records confirm that the resident has experienced issues for “a few years”.

Summary of events

On 16 January 2020, the resident contacted this Service to advise that he had issues with a lack of heating and hot water in his property. The landlord had reportedly refused to accept the complaint over the telephone, which the resident was unable to send to it in writing as he could not write.
On 21 January 2020, this Service wrote to the landlord to request that it provide a response to the resident’s above complaint within 21 days.
On 23 January 2020, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage one complaint. It advised that it would contact the resident on 30 January 2020, and that it aimed to provide a full response to the complaint by 18 February 2020.
The landlord’s records confirm that its contractor had spoken to the resident on 31 January 2020, during which the resident advised the following:
1. The resident was experiencing leaks going into his kitchen and bedroom “every time it rains”, which had damaged the walls.
2. He believed the leak to be coming from the upstairs flat, who had not been cooperating with the landlord’s contractor to allow access.
The landlord’s records confirm that, on 7 February 2020, its contactors attended to the leak in the upstairs flat.
On 19 February 2020, the landlord’s records confirm that it had spoken to the resident, who advised that the leak returns “on and off, when it rains”. This had damaged the plaster in his bedroom and a mould wash was required. It had arranged to visit the resident’s property on 27 February 2020.
The landlord supported this conversation with a written update to the resident on the complaint on 19 February 2020, for which it needed more time to reply. It aimed to give him a full complaint response by 4 March 2020.
On 21 February 2020, the landlord again informed the resident that it needed more time to provide him with a complaint response. It would be visiting the resident on 27 February 2020 and would follow this up with further contact with the resident on 3 March 2020 to discuss the inspection and any required repairs. It therefore now hoped to provide its complaint response by 20 March 2020.
On 2 March 2020, the landlord emailed its contractor to request ten work items, summarised as follows:
1. Check the bathroom and kitchen in the upstairs flat as a priority and rectify any leaks that it found before commencing the remaining work.
2. Internally, the resident’s kitchen and bathroom had defective plaster, which had to be removed before it would replaster and redecorate in both rooms.
3. Externally, cracks that had been identified in the brickwork that were to be filled and re-rendered. The gutter above the resident’s window was also to be unblocked.
On 12 March 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that it had inspected the work required during its visit of 27 February 2020, following which it had tried to contact the resident’s mobile telephone number on 5, 9, 10 and 12 March 2020, and had left messages to request a call back from him. It had therefore closed the complaint, and it requested that he contact it.
On 13 March 2020, the landlord updated its contractor to provide the resident’s landline number, as his mobile telephone was not working.
On 7 May 2020, the landlord’s contractor confirmed that it may have to raise the above job to do the gutter and the leak now, with the remaining jobs to be raised after the corona virus pandemic, as they were not essential works.
On 15 May 2020, the landlord’s contractor confirmed that the guttering affecting the resident’s property had been cleared.
On 22 May 2020, the resident reported issues with his electrics tripping, and requested an emergency plumber. The landlord’s contractor attended that same day to complete the required repairs, according to its records.
On 11 June 2020, the landlord’s records confirm that it visited the resident that morning, and a plasterer would also be attending later that day. It recognised that external work remained outstanding, which it would be starting on 19 June 2020.
On 23 June 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise of a further delay in its complaint response. It was waiting for its contractors to provide an update on the completed work, and the corona virus restrictions were delaying its investigation. It now hoped to provide a full complaint response by 3 July 2020.
The landlord subsequently provided an undated further update to the resident on his complaint, which included the resident’s boiler breaking down “on a number of occasions”. It stated that it had hoped to respond to the complaint by 7 July 2020, but as it had taken longer than expected to gather the required information, it now hoped to respond to his complaint in full by 21 July 2020.
On 21 July 2020, the landlord provided another further update to the resident on his complaint. It confirmed that it would contact the resident to arrange an appointment to finalise the repairs. The landlord now hoped to provide its complaint response by 18 August 2020.
On 6 August 2020, the landlord noted that it gained access to the upstairs flat to repair the leak under the kitchen sink.
On 18 August 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident again to advise of a further delay in its complaint response, due to it taking longer than expected to gather the required information. It now hoped to respond to the complaint by 5 September 2020. The landlord confirmed that the external repairs had now been completed, and that it would be attending to the flat upstairs to ensure that there would be no further leaks.
On 2 September 2020, the landlord’s records detailed a conversation where it had spoken to the resident, who had reported another leak “from two weeks ago” from the upstairs flat which had tripped his electrics. It requested the following information from its contractor:
1. The history of their attendances to the resident’s property.
2. Confirmation that the bedroom was to be re-plastered and decorated on 16 September 2020, as the resident was elderly and needed notification for moving furniture.
3. The date for the kitchen to be replastered, bonded, and painted.
4. The date for the mastic to be applied around the bath.
The landlord’s contractor responded to the landlord on 2 September 2020 and confirmed that it had been unable to complete work as there was still an active leak from the upstairs flat. It informed the landlord of difficulties in contacting the upstairs neighbour, who was currently on holiday.
On 2 September 2020, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident, which is summarised as follows:
1. It recognised that it “could have done the repairs quicker”, and apologised to him for this. The landlord also recognised that that there had been “multiple leaks”, which it further apologised for, explaining that it could not disclose any more information to the resident, other than it would be contacting his upstairs neighbour.
2. It would be prioritising the leak in the upstairs flat once the upstairs neighbour had returned from holiday, and would then contact the resident to book appointments for the outstanding internal repairs.
3. It recognised that there had been “a lack of communication with [its] contractors”, which it also apologised for. The landlord also confirmed that it had discussed this complaint with its contractors to ensure that it learnt from the complaint.
4. It offered the resident £100 total compensation, comprising of £25 for time and trouble, £50 for the delay in completing the repairs, and £25 for the stress and inconvenience.
On 3 September 2020, the landlord requested a heating survey for the resident’s property in his response to his report that the heating there was “a financial burden”.
On 17 September 2020, the landlord’s contractor confirmed to the landlord that they had attended the upstairs flat on that date to repair the leak under the kitchen sink.
On 17 September 2020, this Service also spoke to the resident, who advised the following:
1. The landlord had failed to issue its stage two final complaint response to the resident, despite him requesting this for “several weeks”, and the residual damp at his property was affecting his breathing.
2. As a result, we wrote to the landlord on the same date to request that it issued its stage two complaint response to the resident by 25 September 2020.
On 25 September 2020, the landlord issued its stage two final complaint response to the resident. It confirmed the following:
1. It would be hand-delivering a letter to the upstairs neighbour to get access and confirm that there were no further leaks. The landlord would then arrange for the outstanding repairs to be completed at the resident’s property.
2. It apologised for not identifying and repairing the leak earlier, and for not communicating “with any reassurance” on how this would be rectified. The landlord also recognised that, although it had experienced difficulties in gaining access to the upstairs flat to address the leak, it did not take enforcement action for this despite a process allowing it to do so if needed. This resulted in the “multiple leaks during [the resident’s] complaint process” continuing.
3. It confirmed that the leak from the upstairs flat was reported on 6 August 2020. This was repaired on 17 September 2020, with the delay due to the upstairs neighbour being on holiday. The landlord would therefore be completing a final inspection to ensure that there were no further leaks, before completing the remaining repairs to the resident’s property.
4. It apologised for the “extreme amount of frustration throughout this repair.” The landlord further acknowledged that it “should have aimed to deliver a quicker resolution” for the resident. It also advised that the challenges experienced in getting access to the upstairs flat, as well as the restrictions imposed in March 2020 following the corona virus national lockdown, contributed to the delays.
5. It therefore increased its total offer of compensation to £350, consisting of: £150 for the resident’s patience during the complaints process, £100 for the delay in the completion of the required work, and £100 for the distress and inconvenience this caused, as well as for its poor communication around the work.
On 4 November 2020, the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had reviewed its compensation award for this complaint. It did not feel that it had sufficiently taken into consideration the delays that the resident had experienced prior to receiving its stage two final complaint response, “particularly for the way in which [the resident’s] complaint was handled”. The landlord also wanted to further recognise the distress and inconvenience this caused the resident and therefore increased its total compensation offer to £500. This now consisted of £150 for his patience during the complaints process, £200 for the delay in completing the works, and £150 for distress, inconvenience and poor communication.
The landlord’s records confirm that it spoke to the resident on 12 November 2020, who confirmed his acceptance of the new compensation offer above.
The resident subsequently spoke to this Service on 12 January 2021, whereby he confirmed that the above reported issues with his heating were connected to his complaint as the leaks were coming from the boiler, as well as that there was still painting to be done at his property and that he sought £700 to £1,000 compensation from the landlord.

Assessment and findings

It has been identified that the resident has reportedly experienced difficulties breathing as a result of the damp in his property. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding his medical conditions, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing or to award damages for this in the way that a court or insurer might because we have neither the authority nor the expertise necessary to do so. However, the resident’s general distress and inconvenience have been considered as part of this report.
In response to the resident’s reports of problems with heating, hot water, and water leaks, the landlord was obliged to identify and repair the cause of the water leak, complete the remaining internal work as agreed with him, and provide a written response to his complaint, in accordance with its repair responsibilities. Although it is recognised that there is a historical element to this complaint, the landlord was only obliged to review the last six months, as per its complaints and compensation policy above at paragraph 6. It failed to communicate this to the resident and failure was therefore found with this in its complaint responses to him; however, its records confirm that this was taken into consideration prior to submitting its compensation offer of £500.
Following receipt of the letter from this Service on 21 January 2020, this was treated as a formal stage one complaint by the landlord and acknowledged by it as such to the resident on 23 January 2020. As the leak was coming from the upstairs flat, which the landlord was having difficulty accessing, it was unable to provide a response to the resident’s complaint from 18 February 2020 as advised. It did issue timely updates to the resident on 19 and 21 February and 12 March 2020. This was reasonable, and in accordance with its complaints and compensation policy above at paragraph 4, as the landlord’s difficulties in accessing the upstairs flat meant that there were complex issues in resolving the complaint permitting it to take additional time to investigate this.
Furthermore, the corona virus national lockdown resulted in understandable delays in the complaint investigation that were noted in the landlord’s records on 7 May 2020, its complaint update to the resident on 23 June 2020 and its stage two final complaint response to him on 25 September 2020. The landlord evidenced that it continued to monitor the resident’s complaint, and that it carried out repair works that it was able to complete during this period. These included addressing the guttering on 15 May 2020, and, later that month, arranging an emergency plumber’s appointment on 22 May 2020 due to further issues experienced by the resident with his electrics tripping.
The landlord continued to have difficulties gaining access to the flat above to address the leak and provided written updates to the resident on 23 June, 21 July and 18 August 2020 up to its stage one complaint response on 2 September 2020. It evidenced that it kept him informed, and it is appreciated that there were complex issues. However, it was not reasonable for the resident to have waited over seven months for the repairs to be completed, with the landlord’s poor communication with its contractors contributing, and so failure was found for this in its complaint correspondence.
It is noted that the landlord acknowledged its failure to complete the repairs sooner, and its lack of communication with its contractors, and that it apologised to the resident for this in its above correspondence. As per its complaints and compensation policy above at paragraph 5, it was obliged to consider offering compensation to the resident for these failings. It did so, using its full complaints procedure to eventually offer £500 total compensation to the resident in settlement of the complaint on 4 November 2020.
The Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance details a compensation award of £250 to £700 where the Ombudsman has found considerable service failure, but where there may be no permanent impact on the resident. Examples include the resident repeatedly having to chase responses and seek the correction of mistakes, and the failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy to address repairs.
In view of this, the landlord’s offer of £500 was in line with this Service’s own remedies guidance. The landlord has offered compensation that the Ombudsman considers was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings. It has also discussed the complaint with its contractors on how it would avoid this situation happening again.
Although the resident has sought a higher level of compensation from the landlord of £700 to £1,000, its complaints and compensation policy did not require it to award this to him because this instead gave it discretion to determine how much compensation it offered him. As it did so reasonably by awarding him proportionate compensation for each of its acknowledged failures at a level recommended by this Service, it was not required to increase its offer to him.
In summary, while it is acknowledged that the resident has found the situation distressing and upsetting, the evidence demonstrates that the landlord ultimately took reasonable steps to meet its obligations to him. It did so including by keeping the resident updated on the progress of the complaint, and undertaking the necessary repairs which fell within its remit to complete.
There were unacceptable delays in the completion of the repairs, as well as issues with communication between the landlord and its contractors which constituted failures in service. However, the landlord subsequently took the opportunity of the formal complaints process to fully investigate the reports, formally confirm its position, and adequately redress those failings by completing the repairs and offering appropriate compensation. It has therefore been recommended below to re-offer the compensation to the resident, if he has not received this already, and to complete any outstanding remedial works to his property, if it has not yet done so.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

Failures were found in the time taken for the landlord to carry out the necessary repairs, and for its poor communication with both the resident and its contractors.
The landlord nevertheless identified these failings, apologised, and offered appropriate compensation, which was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to its failures.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Re-offer the resident the £500 compensation that it previously awarded him, if he has not received this already.
2. Complete any outstanding remedial works to the resident’s property, including to the heating system and painting there, if it has not yet done so.
The landlord should contact this Service within four weeks to confirm whether it will follow the above recommendations.
The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.