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

Hyde Housing Association Limited (202221054)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221054

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 repairs to the balcony door.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant. He has vulnerabilities including mental health concerns, suicidal ideations and during the time of the complaint, he was receiving cancer treatment. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the 17th floor.
  2. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 7 November 2022. He said that he was unhappy that he had first contacted the landlord in December 2021 to advise that his balcony door was not secure and that it had not contacted him about replacing the door. He mentioned that he was vulnerable and suffered from depression which the situation had impacted.
  3. The landlord contacted the resident on 16 November 2022 and said that the door was made safe in August 2022 and that it would not replace the door until the following year. He was unhappy with this response and said that he was told in September 2022 that the door was being made and would be fitted in approximately 6-8 weeks.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 18 November 2022. It said that it had spoken with the resident and later understood it had given incorrect information to him. It apologised for the stress and confusion caused to him. It confirmed that the door was being made and that it would be replaced in December 2022 or January 2023. It closed the complaint at this stage.
  5. The resident contacted this Service on 21 December 2022 and said that he felt the complaint was not resolved. It is unclear whether the resident contacted the landlord prior to this. This Service wrote to the landlord on the same date and asked for it to respond to his complaint. He contacted this Service again on 23 January 2023 and said that he had not had any further response or acknowledgement from the landlord about his complaint. He was concerned that the timeframe given in the stage 1 complaint response was about to expire and he still had not had any contact about replacing the door. This Service wrote to the landlord again on this date and asked for it to respond to the complaint and provide a copy to this Service within 5 working days.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 10 February 2023. It said that the works had been booked in and completed as of 6 February 2023. It agreed that it did not respond quickly enough to the reported repair, and it then failed to address it appropriately after the complaint was submitted. It apologised for this and offered £200 compensation. This was made up of:
    1. £50 for the delay in its acknowledgement and formal response to the complaint.
    2. £50 for time and trouble.
    3. £50 for distress and inconvenience caused.
    4. £50 for delays with completing repairs.
  7. The resident contacted this Service on 3 March 2023. He said that he was happy with the quality of the repair and the workmanship, but that the time taken was far too long. He said that he felt that the landlord owed him money for the stress and heating costs that he incurred due to its failure to fix the door.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has said that he felt that the landlord’s award of compensation did not account for the impact on his health when he received cancer treatment during this period. In line with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service cannot establish a causation of, or liability for, impacts on health. This may be better suited to be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. This Service has considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident as well as the landlord’s response to the concerns he raised about his health.

Handling of repairs to the balcony door

  1. The resident said in his complaint that he had first reported the balcony door did not close in December 2021. The landlord did not provide any record of this to this Service and the resident had been unable to evidence that the repair was reported at this time.
  2. The landlord’s internal complaint logs stated that the balcony door was made safe in August 2022. The resident did not dispute that it attended around this time. He said that it attended the property and put a bolt on the internal side of the door so that it would close, but he said that it did not close fully and remained letting cold air through as it remained insecure. He also said that the bolt cut his arm on one occasion but that he did not advise the landlord of this. As above, this Service is unable to look at complaints relating to personal injuries as this would be better suited to the courts.
  3. In the landlord’s responsive repairs procedure, it states that external doors are its responsibility. It states that emergency repairs, such as insecure doors, should be attended within 4 hours and made safe within 24 hours of it being reported. It states that it will complete follow on work within 20 working days. While this Service does not have evidence of when the door repair was first reported, and therefore we cannot establish whether the landlord did respond within 4 hours to the report in August 2022, this matter is not disputed by the resident as part of the complaint.
  4. The resident said that he was advised by the landlord in September 2022 that the door was being made and it would take around 6-8 weeks for it to be installed. When he made his complaint, the landlord called him on 16 November 2022 and said that it was not going to replace the door until the next financial year, but that it could attend the property to adjust the door in the meantime. This caused confusion and distress to the resident as he had been given conflicting information and he queried this with the landlord. It acted inappropriately when it said that it would not replace the door until the next financial year as it had not considered the impact of this on the resident’s mental health. This would have added further detriment to the resident.
  5. It is clear in the landlord’s complaint logs that it had received the information about the door being completed in the next financial year from the repairs team. After the resident raised his concerns, the landlord checked with its internal departments. On 17 November 2022, the asset management team confirmed that it would replace the door in the current financial year as part of its complaint commitment. It said that the door was currently being made and would be installed either in December 2022 or January 2023.
  6. It is evident that there was a lack of internal communication between the landlord’s repairs team and the complaints team. If there had been sufficient record keeping regarding the property or records of communications on the tenancy file, this would have shown what the resident had been told in the past and the likely timescale for proposed works. It was a failure of the landlord not to have ensure clear internal communications as this resulted in distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 18 November 2022. It said that it had previously spoken to the resident, and it had given him incorrect information. It apologised for the stress and confusion caused. It clarified that the door was being made and would be replaced in December 2022 or January 2023 and that it now considered the complaint to be closed. It is unclear why the information provided on 18 November 2022 differed from that offered the day before. The resident was understandably distressed by being told conflicting information and the landlord could have helped to alleviate any further distress by updating the resident at its earliest opportunity.
  8. The records held by the landlord relating to the resident’s vulnerabilities are contradictory. It told this Service on 11 August 2023 that it had no record of any vulnerabilities. However, the resident’s complaint disclosed a history of depression. The landlord later referred to the resident in its internal records as a vulnerable resident. He was also undergoing cancer treatment at the time of the complaint, but it is unclear as to whether the landlord had been informed of this during the internal complaints procedure.
  9. The landlord should have updated its records to reflect the vulnerabilities that he had disclosed during the internal complaints procedure (relating to depression). If it had done so, its staff could have been made aware when checking his housing file and it could have asked if any adjustments were needed when it communicated with him, as well as being able to assess the risk as to whether the repair needed to be completed more urgently. The landlord had safeguarding responsibilities but as it did not complete a risk assessment, it is unclear whether the risk of suicidal ideations was considered in the context of the complaint.
  10. The resident was unhappy with the response he received from the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response. He did not escalate the complaint to the landlord, but he contacted this Service on 21 December 2022 and said that he felt the matter was not resolved because the door had not been replaced. This Service wrote to the landlord on the same date and asked it to investigate this.
  11. The landlord did not respond to the resident which prompted him to contact this Service again on 23 January 2023. This Service wrote to the landlord on this date and asked for it to respond to the complaint and provide a response to both the resident and this Service within 5 working days. This Service advised the landlord that he wanted the door to be replaced as soon as possible and for compensation for the delay in providing the replacement and for his increased energy bills as a result of trying to heat his property when the door could not close. While it is acknowledged that the landlord did fail to escalate the complaint appropriately, when this Service prompted it to respond as a complaint, it did then reply in a timely manner.
  12. Following this, on 24 January 2023 and 26 January 2023, the landlord contacted the resident to agree a date for the door installation. The stage 2 complaint response was made on 10 February 2023. It acknowledged and apologised that it did not respond quickly enough to the repairs and that it did not enforce its internal complaints procedure correctly.
  13. It took until 6 February 2023 for the door to be replaced. The door needed to be manufactured and therefore it went over the 20 working day timeframe set out in the landlord’s repairs policy. This is understandable in the circumstances given the need for a new door to be manufactured. However, there was a long period of time where the resident was left feeling confused and had to spend time chasing up the works and installation. The landlord knew that he was vulnerable and had depression as the resident advised it of this in his complaint. It would have been appropriate for it to update the resident throughout the period of December 2022 and January 2023 as to any information regarding when the door would be ready to be installed. It did not update him when it went over the expected timeframe previously given to him and this left a vulnerable resident uncertain as to when his balcony door would fully operate and concerned about the financial cost to him.
  14. The landlord’s complaints and compensation policy statement states that compensation will be paid:
    1. When it has failed to deliver a service to the advertised standard.
    2. In recognition of the time and trouble taken by the customer to make their complaint.
    3. In recognition of distress and inconvenience experienced by the customer.
    4. To reflect where a customer has suffered a loss because of a service failure.
  15. The landlord’s compensation procedure details how it calculates offers of compensation. It states that where there is a medium impact to the delay in completing works and delivering its service, it will pay up to £250. It states that this includes instances where there has been a repeated failure to address the shortcomings of a low impact event. A low impact of the delay can allow for compensation up to £100.
  16. In the stage 2 complaint response made on 10 February 2023, the landlord made an attempt at redress to the resident by offering £200 compensation. This was made up of £50 for delay in its acknowledgement and formal response to the complaint, £50 for time and trouble, £50 for distress and inconvenience caused and £50 for delays with completing the repairs. The compensation offered was not sufficient to reflect the distress and inconvenience that the resident experienced through the landlord’s handling of the repair to the balcony door. It also did not address the resident’s complaint of the property being cold due to the door not closing and his request for compensation for his increased energy bills to heat the property.
  17. The prolonged delay in the landlord completing the door renewal, from August 2022 to February 2023, had an adverse impact on the resident. He spent the colder months, in winter, in a property that was on the 17th floor, without a fully operational door. He reported that the door remained unable to close, even after the appointment to make it safe in August 2022, as part of the complaint about the replacement of the door. He also spent time chasing the landlord and this Service to receive a response to his complaint.
  18. While it is unclear whether the landlord knew of his cancer treatment at the time of the complaint, it was aware of his mental health concerns and had referred to him as a vulnerable resident in its internal communications. The landlord did not follow its repairs procedure and failed to assess the impact of the repair on the resident, particularly considering his mental health concerns (even if it was not aware of the cancer diagnosis). It should have spoken to the resident and discussed his vulnerabilities with him to assess how best to approach the repair to the door.
  19. The landlord did not give the resident any updates or reasons as to why the manufacturing of the door exceeded the predicted timeframe. The timeline of events shows that it took 6 months to install the new door while it advised that the actual manufacture time was only up to 2 months. Additionally, it is unclear why there was a delay where seemingly no works were raised to manufacture the door between the appointment to make safe in August 2022 and the complaint prompting the manufacture in November 2022.
  20. The resident experienced significant distress and inconvenience with pursuing his complaint when the landlord failed to reasonably escalate it. The lack of internal communication resulted in incorrect information being given to him which added to his distress and confusion in the matter. The stage 1 complaint response then outlined that the door was being made and he would have the door replaced in either December 2022 or January 2023. When he did not hear from the landlord, he was left feeling even more confused and uncertain as to what was happening. His expectations were raised by the landlord, and this was not met due to its lack of communication and providing updates to him.
  21. It is this Service’s view that considering the array of factors identified above, the landlord’s offer of £200 compensation was not sufficient and was not appropriate in all the circumstances. It apologised for the delay in responding to the reported repair and for not addressing it appropriately after he submitted a complaint, however, an apology with this level of compensation falls short of reasonable redress given the circumstances of the case.
  22. The resident experienced a substantial delay in having the door replaced. There was a period of time where no action was taken between the make safe appointment in August 2022 and the landlord agreeing to manufacture the door following his complaint being made in November 2022. This delay should be considered as medium impact with a compensation award of up to £250 appropriate.
  23. The landlord’s compensation procedure allows an additional payment for time and trouble up to a maximum of £50 and for a separate payment for distress and inconvenience where it can award up to £250 for medium impact on a resident and up to £100 for low impact. The landlord has not sufficiently considered the impact of the distress and inconvenience that this experience had understandably caused to him. The compensation awarded was not appropriate in the circumstances.
  24. In line with this Service’s remedies guidance, it would be appropriate for the landlord to offer £750 for the distress and inconvenience caused, the time taken for the landlord to respond to the complaint and the delay in completion of the repair. This amount also considers the landlord’s failure to assess the risk to the resident by not completing this repair in its own timeframes set out in its policy.
  25. The resident asked this Service to award compensation specifically for his increased heating costs during the period where his balcony door did not close. The landlord was aware of his desired outcome for this when this Service emailed it on 23 January 2023. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have inspected the property when these concerns were raised to see whether any draught proofing measures could have been put in place to help with this. It is noted that draught proofing may not have been an emergency repair, and therefore could have exceeded the time taken for it to replace the door which it did on 6 February 2023, but it could have discussed the options with the resident at this time. It also should have referred him for a financial assessment and asked him for his heating bills to investigate whether the repair delay had caused additional heat to be used. The landlord is recommended to investigate this with the resident and complete a financial assessment to see whether any further compensation should be awarded for increased energy bills.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the balcony door.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise in writing to the resident with regards to its handling of repairs to the balcony door.
    2. Pay £750 compensation for its handling of repairs to the balcony door. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £200, less any amount already paid by the landlord as part of its previous offer. This should be paid directly to the resident and not to the rent account.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider investigating the resident’s increased energy bills during the time that the balcony door was reported but not fixed. It should consider an award of compensation, in addition to the above order, if it is found that the resident experienced increased energy bills during this period.
  2. The landlord should consider reviewing its policy on handling reasonable adjustments and vulnerable tenants. It should also consider providing training to its staff to ensure that records are being updated on the resident’s housing file when it receives new information, such as vulnerabilities of the resident or when renewal works are agreed. This would lead to better internal communications and more accurate updates to residents.