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

Hyde Housing Association Limited (202204043)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204043

Hyde Housing Association Limited

30 May 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 roof repairs to the building.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a shared owner of the landlord since October 2009. The property is described as 3-bedroom flat located on the first floor within a 8-storey purpose-built block.
  2. In April 2021, the resident notified the landlord that she had noticed a damp patch in the property. The landlord’s records do not give the location of the damp patch.
  3. Between 10 May 2021 to 5 July 2021, inspections were carried out to the property. On 5 August 2021, the resident notified the landlord that she was moving to alternative accommodation. In addition, she requested confirmation that the property was uninhabitable so she could apply for a council tax exemption.
  4. On the same day, the resident made a complaint to the landlord. The resident expressed that for the past 3 months, it had failed to address her reports of damp and mould in the property. A leak detection report had been commissioned by the loss adjuster appointed by the insurer. The resident went on to say that the surveyor and his manager had discounted the roof as the possible cause of the water ingress and advised that the flooring needed to be taken up.
  5. The resident said that she felt misadvised by the surveyor and his manager and had not been given the contact details for the insurers. The resident asked whether she had to pay full rent and service charge for the property whilst she was living in alternative accommodation.
  6. The resident wrote to her Member of Parliament (MP) on 12 September 2021, giving a timeline of events that had occurred since April 2021 regarding the water ingress into the property. She advised that the landlord’s insurers were involved since 16 July 2021. She had complained to the landlord in August 2021 and not received a response. The MP forwarded the resident’s concerns to the landlord on 26 November 2021.
  7. The resident chased the complaint response and progress on the roof works on 13 October 2021, 19 October 2021, 29 October 2021,14 December 2021, 20 January 2022 and 4 May 2022.
  8. In addition, the resident chased progress regarding repairs to the communal corridor on 3 November 2021 and 3 December 2021. The landlord responded on 3 December 2021 and on 6 February 2022 to advise that the works required to the communal corridor had been assessed and decoration works were required. The landlord’s records show that the decoration works to the communal corridor were completed by its contractors on 28 March 2022 and the resident informed.
  9. This Service wrote to the landlord on 7 June 2022, requesting that it respond to the resident’s complaint. The landlord spoke to the resident on 9 June 2022 and sent out an acknowledgement of her complaint that same day.
  10. The landlord provided its initial complaint response on 20 July 2022. It acknowledged that the repairs to remedy the water ingress into the property should have been completed sooner. It explained that the water ingress flowed through 4 other leaseholders’ properties and was also attributed to a defect to the rainwater pipe on the roof. It stated that the resident had been decanted to alternative accommodation organised through the leaseholder insurance policy. The leak had been addressed as well as redecoration works completed.
  11. The landlord apologised for its failure to proactively manage the situation and offered the resident compensation of £350, broken down as £200 for the delay in its service delivery and for arranging the repairs plus £150 for the time and trouble caused to her.
  12. The landlord’s records show that it spoke to the resident the day it issued its complaint response. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the compensation award and it agreed for this to be reviewed.
  13. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 12 August 2022, advising that it had increased the overall compensation award to £750. This was broken down as £500 for the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident plus £250 for the delays that she had experienced.
  14. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

The complaint about the landlord’s handling of roof repairs to the property.

  1. The Ombudsman considers whether the landlord has followed its policies and procedures correctly. Also, whether the landlord’s response was reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
  2. The landlord is responsible under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to ensure that residents live in a property that is reasonably maintained and fit for habitation.
  3. The landlord has demonstrated in its complaint responses that it has formally acknowledged its service failures in handling the water ingress into the resident’s property. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
    1. Be fair;
    2. Put things right;
    3. Learn from mistakes.
  4. This report will consider whether the compensation offered through the complaint process can be considered as sufficient redress for the service failures that the resident experienced.
  5. The resident experienced water ingress into the property from around April 2021. The landlord is responsible for carrying out roof repairs. By July 2021, the landlord’s insurer agreed that the resident and her family could not remain in the property and organised the temporary decant to alternative accommodation. The landlord remained responsible for the diagnosing and the resolution of the repairs to stop the water ingress into the property.
  6. The landlord’s repair policy states that after making safe an emergency repair, it will complete follow on repairs within 20 working days. The landlord has accepted in its complaint responses that the resident experienced an unacceptable delay in its diagnosis and resolution of the water ingress into the property.
  7. Inspections of the resident’s and her neighbours’ properties took place in May 2021, June 2021 and in July 2021 – this was appropriate. In accordance with its track and trace leak clarification procedure, the landlord had to use a process of elimination to diagnose the cause of the water ingress into the property. It is noted that the loss adjuster recommended a leak detection report.
  8. It is not clear from the landlord’s submission to this Service when it and its insurers agreed that the cause of the water ingress into the property was from the roof to the building. Therefore, it not possible to comment whether any works to the roof were delayed by the parties reaching agreement. However, it is noted that the insurers and claims manager were dissatisfied with the professionalism displayed by the landlord’s surveyor. It is important that landlords keep good records setting out when significant decisions are made and the actions that are agreed.
  9. The landlord and its insurers determined that the identification of the reason for the water ingress was complicated. The resident occupies a first floor flat and the water ingress was flowing through 4 properties located above hers as well as the rain water pipe located on the roof. This assessment that the leak diagnosis was complex given the number of properties involved and that it may have been concluded that it was unlikely for the first floor flat to be affected by water ingress from a roof defect.
  10. Nevertheless, the repairs to the roof were not concluded until October 2021, 2 months after the resident moved out of the property. The works to the resident’s property could not commence until the works to the communal corridor were completed, which happened in March 2022. Overall, it took the landlord over 7 months to conclude the roofing repairs and a further 3 months for the works to the communal corridor to be completed. This represented an unacceptable delay. The landlord in its complaint response has accepted that it did not proactively manage or monitor the repairs required to resolve the water ingress into the building.
  11. Good communication relies on a landlord keeping the resident updated and providing progress reports on the actions taken. The landlord has accepted its communication failures in that it either did not always respond to the resident’s contact or it took too long to respond. The landlord’s records also show that it believed that its insurers were leading on communicating with the resident. Whilst its insurers had organised the decant to temporary accommodation, the landlord remained responsible for keeping the resident informed about progress regarding the roof works. Had it maintained good communication with the resident, this may have reassured her that her concerns had not been ignored. Also, this would have assisted with managing the resident’s expectations and reduced her need to chase the landlord for updates.
  12. Furthermore, the landlord’s communication with the resident lacked empathy as it did not show it understood the inconvenience of having to move her and her family to alternative accommodation for an unspecified period of time. The resident and her family were impacted as they were living in alternative accommodation for at least 10 months until the redecoration works were completed to the property. The evidence provided to this Service does not demonstrate that the landlord took steps to prioritise the repairs to enable the resident to return to the property. Rather there is a reference to the surveyor who hindering progress with the identification of the cause of the water ingress, rather than being open minded about the probable causes.
  13. The resident was accommodated in alternative accommodation for around 10 months before the repairs were concluded and she could return to the property. During that period, the resident was informed of 2 other leaks that had affected the property. Both these leaks were the responsibility of the leaseholders living above the resident. It was appropriate for the landlord to inform the resident of the water ingress that had occurred to the property and to notify her when the repairs had been resolved.
  14. In assessing the compensation for service failures, the Ombudsman takes into account a range of factors such as distress and inconvenience to the resident and time and effort taken in pursuing the complaint. In addition, we consider whether the redress offered is proportionate to the severity of the service failure caused by the landlord and the impact on the resident.
  15. The landlord appropriately assessed that the resident had been impacted by its failure to complete the necessary repairs within a reasonable timeframe. Also, it had not communicated well with the resident to keep her properly informed about the action it was taking. Furthermore, it had not given any reassurance to the resident and these factors had impacted her and her family. For this, it apologised and awarded 2 separate compensation amounts: £500 for distress and inconvenience and £250 for the delays she had experienced. It is noted that the landlord’s insurers carried out the redecoration required to the resident’s property.
  16. The landlord’s overall compensation in this case was proportionate as it recognised the prolonged period of time that it took to address the resident’s concerns. The amount was within a range that the Ombudsman would recommend for circumstances where failings have had a significant (physical and/or emotional) impact on a resident.
  17. However, the landlord’s complaint review did not identify how it had learned from the outcome of the case to improve its future service delivery in regard to roof repairs and communications with residents, particularly during temporary decants. A finding of reasonable redress is therefore not appropriate.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s complaint procedure states that it will respond to complaints it receives within 10 working days at its first stage and within 20 working days at its final stage.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord about the water ingress into the property on 5 August 2021. She contacted the landlord over the course of several months to chase the complaint response. This included contacting her MP on 12 September 2021. Despite the MP in turn contacting the landlord on 26 November 2021, it did not take the opportunity to check whether it had responded to the resident’s complaint. Therefore, the resident experienced a further delay in getting her concerns addressed.
  3. The resident chased the complaint response on multiple occasions from August 2021 until she contacted this Service in June 2022. Its records show that the landlord was aware of its insurers involvement in the handling of the resolution of the water ingress into the property and its incorrect belief that its insurers were leading on communication with the resident. This was not appropriate and neither was it in line with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code (July 2020) which informs landlords that they should accept complaints unless there is a good reason not to do so.
  4. Ultimately, this meant that the resident did not receive the landlord’s complaint response and experienced uncertainty and frustration with the landlord.
  5. The resident had to contact this Service to get the landlord to respond to her complaint. Following our intervention, the landlord spoke to the resident on 9 June 2022 and acknowledged the complaint. It wrote to the resident on 24 June 2022, explaining that it would not be able to respond to the complaint on that day and would need more time. It advised that it would response by 11 July 2022. The landlord did not meet the original complaint response day or the extension date it agreed with the resident. This led to the resident experiencing a further delay in getting a response to her concerns. The landlord provided its initial complaint response on 20 July 2022. Overall, the landlord took 242 working days to provide its response to the resident’s complaint. This was not reasonable.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint the same day, advising that she remained dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the landlord. The landlord appropriately reviewed the compensation award. However, the landlord’s final complaint response missed an opportunity to show that it had in its assessment of the compensation award carried out a further investigation. The final complaint response was limited and did not set out the factors it had considered to reach its conclusion that a larger compensation award was warranted.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the landlord’s handling of the roof repairs to the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders.

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the service failures identified within this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £1,150 for the impact of its failings in the handling of the repairs and the related complaint. This is inclusive of the £750 it offered in its complaint response dated 12 August 2022.
  2. Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should in accordance with paragraph 54 (g) review its systems for handling repairs to properties that are linked to insurance claims. This should include:
    1. the responsibilities of its surveyors and insurers during the insurance claim process;
    2. how it takes responsibility for communications with residents during a temporary decant.
  3. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should write to the resident, answering her questions regarding her liability for rent and service charges whilst living in alternative accommodation.
  2. If it has not already done so, the landlord should signpost the resident to the appropriate service to answer her questions about her council tax liability for the property whilst she was living in alternative accommodation.