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

Hyde Housing Association Limited (202203832)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203832

Hyde Housing Association Limited

17 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:
    1. An external sewage leak caused by a blocked drain.
    2. Pest control.
    3. Repairs to the toilet.
    4. Damp and mould following a roof leak.
    5. The formal complaint.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Background

  1. The resident is the assured tenant of the property, which is a 2-bedroom basement maisonette. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. On 2 May 2017 the resident’s solicitors sent a letter of claim to the landlord alleging disrepair at the property. The solicitors and the landlord obtained surveyor’s reports with schedules of work. A claim was issued at the county court on 2 March 2018. The court ordered a ‘stay’ or suspension of the claim, based on an agreement made by the parties, called a Tomlin Order. This said the landlord would complete the works included in the surveyor’s schedule of works. The landlord’s repairs records say that these works were raised on 17 August 2021 and were fully completed by 30 November 2022.
  3. There was a no access for pest control works on 14 January 2022. The resident called the landlord on 8 February 2022 to report that an external drain was blocked and there was sewage outside her window. She called it again on 11 February 2022 and said this had been ongoing for over 2 months. The landlord’s records say it attended that day and resolved the issue.
  4. On 17 February 2022 the resident called the landlord to make a complaint. She said it was a long complaint and the landlord gave her an email address to send her complaint to. There was a second no access for pest control on 27 April 2022. On 4 May 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to make a stage 1 complaint which was about:
    1. A roof leak which was causing damp and mould in the hallway. She also had damp and mould in the 2 bedrooms and bathroom which were included within her disrepair claim.
    2. A leaking toilet.
    3. Sewage building up outside the property for 4 months until the landlord finally resolved this.
    4. A leak from above and remedial works ordered as part of the Tomlin Order.
    5. A mice infestation.
    6. The landlord’s standard of repairs and poor communication.
  5. The landlord raised a repair to inspect the roof for a leak on 20 May 2022. The resident contacted this Service, and the Ombudsman asked the landlord to respond to the complaint on 8 June 2022. The same day the landlord asked internally to arrange an inspection. It acknowledged the complaint the next day.
  6. On 14 June 2022 in an internal email, the landlord said it had written to the resident to arrange the inspection. It carried out pest control works on 22 June 2022 and completed the inspection. It called the resident on 24 June 2022 to say it was still investigating her complaint. Following the inspection, the landlord produced 2 schedules of work for repairs to the bathroom and hallway. These works were similar to those under the Tomlin Order.
  7. The landlord completed further pest control works on 30 June 2022. In an internal email on 14 July 2022, it set out the repairs it had completed and was going to arrange following the inspection. It said it would seek legal advice as the works related to the Tomlin Order.
  8. The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 August 2022 to ask for an extension of time as it was still getting information and there had been staff holiday and illness which caused the delay. Its contractor wrote to her on 5 August 2022 and asked her to call them to arrange a damp and mould survey. The landlord called the resident on 16 August 2022 to book repairs for 5 and 6 September 2022. On 22 August 2022 the landlord’s solicitors made a £7,000 new settlement offer to the resident for any disrepair claims including any claims under the Tomlin Order.
  9. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 23 August 2022 in which it:
    1. Apologised for its delay in arranging repairs and upheld the complaint. It fully accepted its failings and offered £500 compensation for distress and inconvenience, time and trouble. It also offered £200 for delays in complaint handling.
    2. Said it would renew her toilet, replaster her hallway and redecorate following water damage from the roof leak. It also provided a named contact and telephone number for its surveyor overseeing the repairs.
    3. Confirmed the leak from the roof, and from the property above, had been repaired. It had also installed an extractor fan in the bathroom. It had resolved the sewage issue and confirmed pest control works were ongoing.
    4. Apologised for any damage caused to possessions and signposted the resident towards making a claim via its insurers.
    5. Said how she could escalate the complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
  10. On 6 September 2022 the landlord attended but did not replace the toilet. The resident accepted the landlord’s solicitors’ offer to settle her disrepair claim the following day. She asked to escalate her complaint on 7 October 2022. She said the landlord had continued to provide poor customer service and its contractors were refusing to complete repairs. In an internal email on 10 October 2022 the landlord asked for repairs appointments to be made “so we can make attempts to stop this escalation”.
  11. The landlord’s contractors attended the property on 13 October 2022 and jetted the external drain after a build-up of sewage outside the property. On 3 January 2023 the landlord attended out of hours to reports of a leak from the property above and stopped the leak. It attended on 19 January 2023 to fit the new toilet but there was a no access. The resident emailed the landlord on 28 February 2023 and asked again to escalate her complaint. She said there were outstanding repairs from her disrepair claim. She said the landlord had not replaced the toilet, and she still had damp and sewage outside the property which needed to be cleaned. She also said she still had mice and listed other outstanding repairs.
  12. On 9 March 2023 the landlord inspected the property and produced a new schedule of works. It also planned to install the new toilet that day, but its records say it had failed to order this in advance. On 17 and 24 March 2023 it completed further pest control works.
  13. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 6 April 2023 in which it:
    1. Said it had completed all the disrepair works but agreed it had not done this when it should have. It offered £50 additional compensation.
    2. Confirmed it had reinspected and raised additional repairs, but that these repairs were not part of her disrepair claim or original complaint.
    3. Said it had installed the new toilet, after previous no accesses to complete this repair. It had replastered the hallway and painted the areas affected by the roof leak. It said it had agreed to hang new wallpaper.
    4. Apologised for its delays and the inconvenience caused.
    5. Explained how the resident could contact this Service if she remained dissatisfied.

Selected events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

  1. The landlord’s pest control contractor attended the property on 28 April 2023 and confirmed there was no new mice activity. The resident emailed this Service on 3 July 2023 and said the landlord did not complete the replastering or redecorating properly and this was not corrected until 19 May 2023. She also said her toilet had not been replaced.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation 

  1. The evidence provided shows that there have been various and multiple repairs and pest control issues ongoing at the property back to the issued disrepair claim in 2018, as well as during and after the end of the current complaint.
  2. Under paragraph 41(c) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters that are the subject of court proceedings or were the subject of court proceedings where judgement on the merits was given. Therefore, any repairs included in the resident’s complaint, which were included within her issued disrepair claim, have not been considered within this investigation. The resident may wish to seek legal advice about these elements of her complaint.
  3. In addition, under paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matter arising. Therefore, this investigation has only considered events from the beginning of the 12-month period before the resident first attempted to make a complaint on 17 February 2022.
  4. Finally, under paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme this Service may only consider complaint elements which were raised within the landlord’s complaints process and which it had had the opportunity to respond to. Therefore, any complaint elements which were not included within the complaint responded to at stage 2 have not been included in this investigation.

The landlord’s handling of an external sewage leak caused by a blocked drain

  1. Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair external drains and pipework. It categorises repairs under its repairs policy in use at the time as emergency (make safe within 24 hours), standard (repair within 20 working days), or major works.
  2. The resident reported sewage outside the property on 8 February 2022, but it is not clear from the records whether the landlord raised a repair. When she raised the issue again, 3 days later, the landlord attended as an emergency repair under its policy and unblocked the drain by removing the sewage.
  3. When the resident made her stage 1 complaint, she said the sewage had been present for nearly 4 months before the landlord had attended. There are no records of the resident having reported the issue before 8 February 2022. However, the landlord accepted she had waited months for it to resolve the issue within its stage 1 response and apologised for this. It did not respond to this element at stage 2 but apologised for and offered £550 compensation for all its repairs delays and the inconvenience caused combined.
  4. In relation to the failures identified, 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 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, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  5. The landlord accepted it had delayed in resolving the blocked drain and removing the sewage. It apologised for this and offered reasonable compensation. There was reasonable redress.

The landlord’s handling of pest control

  1. The evidence shows there has been a history of mice infestations at the property, and of the landlord sending pest control contractors. Under its pest control policy in use at the time the landlord will instruct its pest control contractors to attend when a resident reports pest activity. The pest control contractors will attend the property to treat and report any structural repairs needed. They will also complete ‘proofing’ works to block any access points. If there is a no access, they will try to reattend up to 3 times.
  2. It is not clear from the records when in 2021 or early 2022 the resident reported mice in the property, but the landlord arranged for its pest control contractors to attend. Although there were 2 no accesses it is not clear why there was a 3-month gap between these. There is also no evidence of what, if anything, the landlord did to arrange appointments which was a failing. Following the stage 1 complaint, and the Ombudsman asking the landlord to respond, its pest control contractors attended twice and carried out works. However, its first appointment was over one and a half months after she made her complaint and that was an unreasonable delay.
  3. Following the resident’s second request to escalate her complaint the landlord correctly arranged further pest control, and its contractors carried out 2 visits. On their third visit, after a delay, they confirmed the pest issue had been resolved.
  4. The landlord said in its stage 1 response that pest control works were ongoing and did not address this element of the complaint in its stage 2 response. While it had followed its policy by instructing its pest control contractors, there were unexplained delays, which resulted in service failure. To reflect the inconvenience, time and trouble caused, an order has been made that the landlord pay £75 compensation to the resident. This amount is in line with our guidance on remedies but also takes into account the delays caused by the 2 no accesses.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the toilet

  1. The landlord’s repairs records include overhauling the toilet due to a possible leak as part of its disrepair works raised on 17 August 2021. However, there is no evidence this formed part of the Tomlin Order, as it was not mentioned in either surveyors’ report before the court made the order. Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair fixtures and fittings for the supply of water including toilets. This is in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
  2. It is not clear from the records why the toilet was not repaired or replaced by the time the resident made her stage 1 complaint. It is also not known how big the leak from the toilet was, but in any event the landlord had clearly exceeded its repairs policy timeframes. It is also not clear why the landlord did not raise a repair, or make an appointment, when it received her complaint. Although it did arrange an inspection, which is solution focused when assessing damp and multiple repairs, it could have repaired the toilet before this.
  3. Within its stage 1 response the landlord said it would renew her toilet rather than repair it which was positive. It also accepted it had taken too long to complete repairs and offered collectively £500 compensation, which showed it wanted to put things right. It booked appointments and gave a named member of its staff as a contact for the resident, which was solution focussed. However, the toilet had not been replaced by the second time the resident asked to escalate her complaint 6 months later, which was a failing.
  4. Within its stage 2 response the landlord said contradictorily that the only outstanding repair from its stage 1 commitments was to replace the toilet, but then said this had been completed. It initially said the works had been refused by the resident by not giving access multiple times, and that it had sent her a letter about this. The Ombudsman has only seen evidence of one no access for the toilet replacement and has not been provided with a copy of this letter. In addition, the landlord failed to order the toilet which caused further delays. It is not clear whether the toilet has been replaced, although the landlord carried out repairs in 2024.
  5. The landlord accepted at stage 2 that it had delayed further in completing the works and apologised. It also increased its compensation offer by £50. When considering whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right there was maladministration. This is due to its delays in raising the repair, assessing and ordering the toilet, and fitting it, which it is not clear if or when it did. To reflect the inconvenience, time and trouble caused an order has been made that the landlord pay £200 additional compensation, which is in line with our guidance on remedies.

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould following a roof leak

  1. The resident has consistently said that she had damp and mould in the property. This was raised as part of her issued disrepair claim and remedial works were included under the Tomlin Order. In addition, the resident raised damp following a roof leak which had affected her hallway as part of her stage 1 complaint. From the various surveyor’s reports and records it is difficult to attribute cause and effect to the damp and mould as being from the existing disrepair with remedial works included under the Tomlin Order, or from this later roof leak.
  2. The landlord responded to its handling of the roof leak and remedial works within its stage 1 response. It also noted a leak from the property above reported in November 2020, but then said it erected scaffolding in December 2021 and admitted it did not do any repairs. It is not clear from the evidence provided when the resident first reported the roof leak or what, if anything, the landlord’s response was. Within its stage 1 response the landlord accepted, regarding the roof leak, it was “unable to see evidence of every contact you have made”. This suggests a record keeping failure and this Service has equally not been able to view records regarding this.
  3. Under the landlord’s damp and mould policy it says it will inspect when it is not able to establish the cause when first reported, such as a leak. Once its surveyor inspects it will establish the cause of damp and mould, and arrange any repairs needed. The landlord inspected on 22 June 2022. It arranged the inspection on the day the Ombudsman asked it to respond to the stage 1 complaint. It did not note damp or mould related to the roof leak, but said there was remedial work needed.
  4. By the date of its stage 1 response the landlord had inspected the roof and confirmed it had been repaired. Due to a lack of repair records the date of or details of the repair are not known. In any event, the repair had far exceeded the landlord’s repairs policy timeframes. It accepted this and said unacceptable delays had been caused by poor internal communication. Positively it said it was going to complete the repairs in the hallway and did on or by 6 September 2022, with some decoration work to finish.
  5. Within its stage 1 and 2 responses, the landlord accepted its delays, apologised, and offered compensation as set out above. Overall, there was maladministration. The landlord took too long to repair the leak and too long to complete the remedial repairs. There was a lack of communication with the resident and lack of records kept. To reflect the inconvenience, time and trouble caused an order has been made that the landlord pay £200 additional compensation to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the formal complaint

  1. The resident called the landlord to make a complaint on 17 February 2022. It is not clear from the records whether she made a verbal complaint or asked for an email address to send her complaint to. Under its complaints policy the landlord uses the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) definition of a complaint. It also says complaints can be made by telephone, in writing, online or in person.
  2. After the resident emailed her stage 1 complaint the landlord failed to acknowledge it within its 2-working day policy timeframe and in breach of the Code in use at the time. It did acknowledge the complaint following the Ombudsman’s request for it to respond. It called the resident on 24 June 2022 to say it was still investigating, but this was 12 working days after this Service contacted it, and 35 working days after she made her complaint. By this point it had exceeded its policy timeframe and that under the Code to respond within 10 working days. It also failed to request an extension of time at that point, as it could have done under its policy.
  3. The landlord did later request an extension of time but by this point 62 working days had passed. Its reason was not an exceptional circumstance warranting an extension as required under the Code. It provided its stage 1 response after 77 working days, which was an unreasonable and unacceptable delay. It accepted this within its stage 1 response, correctly apologised, and offered £200 compensation.
  4. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 7 October 2022, but the landlord failed to acknowledge this. Its internal email 3 days later shows it knew of the request and its tone did not demonstrate the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. It ignored her request, which led her to make a further one on 28 February 2023, which the landlord again failed to acknowledge in breach of the Code.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 2 response 126 working days after the resident’s first escalation request. This was an unacceptable and unreasonable delay, and the landlord has not provided an explanation for this. It failed to acknowledge, apologise for, or offer any redress for this delay, which was a further significant failing. There was maladministration, which caused further frustration, inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident. To reflect this impact an order has been made that the landlord pay £200 additional compensation.

The landlord’s knowledge and information management

  1. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. The landlord’s staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these.
  2. Although the landlord has supplied evidence, records and reports it has been challenging for this Service to investigate this complaint. The landlord had to be asked twice to provide additional important documents after it had made its initial disclosure. In addition, while its repairs reports do include detail, they are difficult to understand. There is a lack of clarity on the exact date of each repairs appointment and what happened, including when the repairs were completed. There are also gaps in the landlord’s repairs and communications records. Overall, there was service failure in the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Determination

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of repairs to the toilet.
    2. Handling of damp and mould following a roof leak.
    3. Handling of the formal complaint.
  2. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of pest control.
    2. Knowledge and information management.
  3. In accordance with Paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of an external sewage leak caused by a blocked drain.

Orders

  1. Within 5 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings detailed in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident additional compensation of £675 made up of:
      1. £75 for the inconvenience, time and trouble cause by its service failure in handling pest control.
      2. £200 for inconvenience, time and trouble cause by its failings in handling repairs to the toilet.
      3. £200 for inconvenience, time and trouble cause by its failings in handling repairs to damp and mould following a roof leak.
      4. £200 for inconvenience, time and trouble cause by its complaint handling failings.
    3. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Pay the £750 compensation it offered within it stage 1 and 2 responses to the resident if it has not already done so.
    2. Carry out a full survey of the property, if it has not recently done so, and complete any outstanding repairs identified.

Paragraph 49 investigation

  1. The Ombudsman completed a special investigation report in December 2024 into the landlord using its systemic powers under paragraph 49 of the Scheme. It found the landlord responsible for a series of significant systemic failings impacting residents. These included “routinely failing to provide timely responses to complaints”, poor communication, and unreasonable delays in completing repairs.
  2. The Ombudsman required the landlord to make changes including improvements to its repairs, complaint handling, and knowledge and information management. As the events of the current complaint took place before the time the report was published, no further orders regarding these areas have been made in addition to those made within the special report.