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

Hyde Housing Association Limited (202223127)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223127

Hyde Housing Association Limited

14 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 relates to the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint  about her boiler replacement, subsequent repair issues, and the conduct of staff and contractors.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat on the third floor within a block comprised of similar properties. The resident lives in the property with her 2 children. The landlord has advised that it has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident, however, the resident has said that she has PTSD and suffers with her mental health.
  2. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord in June 2022. In her communication on 27 June 2022 she set out her concerns in detail. In summary, she complained that:
    1. She had reported that her boiler was broken on 30 May 2022 and a replacement was scheduled for 8 June 2022. She had been told this would take 2 days as a new flue needed to be installed through the ceiling and the area could be accessed with a ladder via her balcony.
    2. On 8 June 2022, the flue could not be installed via her balcony. One operative had asked why the scaffolding had not been ordered and had made comments about her cupboards being sticky before leaving. She then went to pick up her children, leaving one contractor in the property working.
    3. She had received a text message from the contractor who said they had locked themselves out and she initially returned and sent her daughter upstairs with a key. She did not go upstairs herself and then left again and returned at 5:30pm to find the front door, frame and lock had been damaged. She had received video evidence of the contractor attempting to get into the property between 3:30 and 3:45pm, before they had text her. She did not understand why the operative felt this was appropriate and said that this had impacted her mental wellbeing and sleep.
    4. She had reported the incident on 9 June 2022 and said that the call handler was unpleasant and shouted at her, saying that the contractor was trying to finish the job. She had then raised a complaint with their manager and said she felt she had been treated this way due to her ethnicity, being a single mother, and living in social housing. The staff member then sent her an email detailing the conversation and apologised for the poor behaviour, passed on her concerns about the contractor’s conduct and asked the gas installation team to contact her to complete the boiler repair.
    5. During a further call, she was told that the work would not be completed until the following week as she did not want the same contractor to return. She had been without hot water for almost 2 weeks and detailed the impact this was having on her and her children. She said that the staff member had ended the call and she had raised a further complaint.
    6. The following day, contractors and scaffolders had attended to complete the boiler repair. At one stage, there were 4 men in her kitchen talking about what they were going to do at the weekend. She had tried to raise a concern about the 2 men trying to install a flue via a ladder on the third floor balcony and was told that she had ruined the staff member’s weekend. She said she felt harassed, victimised, discriminated against and blamed.
    7. She was advised that she would be contacted for remedial works to the ceiling, wall, and tiles, and that 3 ceiling hatches needed to be installed to access the flue. She reported the repair on 14 June 2022 as she had not been contacted.
    8. On 15 June 2022 her door was sanded, the damage frame replaced, and the lock fixed. A plasterer attended on 20 June 2022 but said he had been not been scheduled enough time to complete the work. She was unhappy that she had taken time off work to be told the repair could not be done. They started to fix the ceiling by covering the hole. She had asked about the hatches and they had asked why she did not tell them before.
    9. She had called the landlord to arrange the remaining follow-on works and was told that this would need to be approved by a manager. She then called in again and spoke to a staff member who advised that the landlord did not have an obligation to decorate the property She said that they were also impolite and disconnected the call when transferring her to the complaint department. When she had called back, she got through to the same staff member who was rude. Someone had then said “thank you bye” and then ended the call.
    10. She had raised 2 complaints on 9 June 2022 but had not been provided with references for these complaints. 10 working days had now passed in line with the landlord’s complaints policy and she wanted her complaint to be escalated to stage 2. She wanted £1,500 compensation for the poor service she had received, and additional costs she had by ordering takeaways and travelling to use alternative bathing facilities due to the lack of hot water. She was also seeking £10,000 in damages for discrimination, harassment, victimisation, disrepair and personal injury.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 8 September 2022. It understood that the complaint related to damages to the resident’s door, frame, and lock. It apologised for the negative impact this had caused to the resident. It upheld the complaint on the basis that it did not fix the door, frame, or lock. It said it had arranged an appointment and said it should have done this sooner. It also apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint raised on 27 June 2022. It offered £150 compensation, comprised of £100 in recognition of her time and trouble, delays, distress and inconvenience, and £50 for the delay in responding to the complaint.
  4. The resident responded on 30 September 2022 and said she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She then asked for the complaint to be escalated on 10 November 2022. She reiterated the concerns she had raised in June 2022 and added that the stage 1 complaint handler had said she refused to discuss the complaint with them, which was not true. She also said that the landlord’s complaints process on its website was misleading and felt her complaint should have been addressed at stage 2. Following contact from the resident, who had not received a response, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 9 January 2023, asking it to respond to her. 
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 2 February 2023 and noted that a representative of its in house contractor had a conversation with the resident to explain what happened and to say sorry. It said that its operative made a mistake and the damage to the resident’s door was an accident, but it recognised that this would have been upsetting. It was pleased that the damage was now rectified. It apologised for the length of time it had taken to resolve the complaint and offered an additional £150 compensation in recognition of the delay and the distress and inconvenience caused to her.
  6. The resident referred her complaint to this Service and explained her reasons for dissatisfaction in May 2023. She remained dissatisfied that the landlord had not responded to her complaints without the intervention of the Ombudsman and all responses were delayed. She added that the works were not finished and the landlord had not acknowledged wrongdoings and inappropriate behaviour by its staff.
  7. The resident has advised that there were 10 appointments scheduled between 11 April 2023 and 30 November 2023, however, on several occasions no work was completed or the operatives did not show. During the initial appointment, a gas engineer could not complete a gas safety inspection due to the lack of ceiling hatches to access the flue. The ceiling hatches were installed on 30 November 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In her communication, the resident has advised that the issues she experienced had a significant impact on her mental health and wellbeing. She added that she felt she has been discriminated against, victimized, and harassed by the landlord and was seeking compensation in the form of damages. The Ombudsman does not make findings in the same way as a court or make binding decisions on matters such as liability, harassment or discrimination. We do not make orders of compensation in the way that a court may order a payment of damages. If the resident wishes to pursue these matters further, she may wish to seek independent advice on pursuing a personal injury claim for impacts on health or a court claim for damages.
  2. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to how the landlord has handled the resident’s complaint and whether it has followed a fair processes in considering her concerns and enquiries relating to the matter. The assessment also considers any general distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident as a result of any failings by the landlord.

Policies and procedures

  1. In line with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairs required to installations for water and space heating. It is also responsible for repairs to doors and door frames. The resident would usually be responsible for internal decorations. The landlord’s repairs policy states that emergency repairs, including those where there is an immediate risk, should be attended to within 4 hours and made safe within 24 hours. Any follow-on work will be attended to within the landlord’s anytime repair timescale of 20 working days.
  2. The landlord’s complaint process at the time of the resident’s complaint in June 2022 stated that it had a 2 stage formal complaints process but that the resident could choose to have their complaint considered informally where a response could be provided and the issue resolved within 5 working days. It should respond at each formal stage within 10 and 20 working days respectively. If, at any stage, there was likely to be a delay, the landlord would be expected to contact the resident, explain the reason for the delay, and provide a new response date.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about her boiler replacement, subsequent repair issues, and the conduct of staff and contractors

  1. In this case, the resident provided significant detail in her complaint of the issues she was dissatisfied with but the landlord only addressed delays in repairing the door and the contractor’s actions within its complaint responses. The landlord is expected to address each aspect of a resident’s complaint and it was a failing that it did not do so.
  2. The landlord was asked to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint but only limited information was received, which did not include significant items such as information related to the repairs completed in the property, contemporaneous information related to the investigations undertaken into her concerns about staff conduct, or clear communication logs. The omissions indicate poor record keeping by the landlord in that it was not able to provide the relevant information or evidence how it satisfied itself that it had adequately investigated her concerns.

Boiler replacement and follow-on works

  1. The landlord failed to comment on its handling of the boiler replacement or subsequent works needed to install hatches to the ceiling to safely access the flue within its responses, despite this issue forming a key aspect of the resident’s complaint. There is a lack of records from the landlord to confirm when the boiler issues were first reported or when the work was completed. However, from the resident’s record of events, it is understood that the work to the flue was completed around 10 June 2022.
  2. The landlord has failed to comment on the resident’s concerns about the impact the loss of hot water had on her and her family. It has also failed to investigate what went wrong or explain why the scaffolding was not found to be required in the first instance to avoid any unnecessary delay. It had provided evidence that this was ordered initially. While the delay was not significant, there was a lack of communication regarding the repair and a lack of follow-up which was likely to cause inconvenience. 
  3. It is evident that the resident needed to spend additional time and trouble asking for the damage to the ceiling and walls, as a result of the installation, to be corrected. Despite raising concern that a plasterer had attended to fill a hole in the ceiling but that they did not know about the hatches being needed or fully complete the work, this was not addressed by the landlord or put right within its complaint responses of either 8 September 2022 or 2 February 2023.
  4. The landlord has provided evidence of 7 work orders related to arranging a post inspection, plastering, boxing in around the boiler pipes, and installing the ceiling hatches. These were raised and reportedly completed between 12 April 2023 and 1 August 2023. However, the resident has advised that 5 appointments were missed or cancelled on the day and the ceiling hatches were not installed during this time. It is of concern that the landlord’s records do not provide clear information about what work was completed on each appointment or whether the appointments were cancelled.
  5. In its communication with the Ombudsman in December 2023, the landlord said that inspection hatches should have been fitted to the ceiling following the repair but this was not communicated to the plasterer. It also advised that a return visit was booked for 30 November 2023 but failed to confirm that the works were completed or provide evidence of this. The resident has confirmed that work was completed on this date. This was approximately 17 months following the initial boiler replacement and represented an unreasonable period of time.
  6. It is evident that the resident spent considerable time and trouble pursuing a resolution and correcting mistakes as a result of the lack of oversight by the landlord. The inconvenience caused to the resident was added to by its failure to consider her concerns within its complaint responses. This led to several missed opportunities to put things right at the earliest opportunity.

Damage caused to the resident’s front door by a contractor

  1. It is not disputed that the contractor should not have attempted to gain access to the resident’s property after being locked out on 8 Jue 2022. The damage caused to her door was understandably distressing for the resident who had not been informed by the contractor of the damage before she returned home and needed to spend time gaining evidence of what had happened.
  2. The Ombudsman does not consider or comment on how a landlord should deal with identified service failings by individual members of staff, in terms of any disciplinary proceedings. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(h) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states that this Service will not consider complaints which concern terms of employment or other personnel issues. However, the landlord would be expected to investigate a resident’s concerns and put right any failings by individual staff members.
  3. The landlord’s gas access and servicing management plan states that in situations where emergency access is necessary, i.e. for gas leaks and carbon monoxide, it would liaise with the resident to gain entry to the property. Forced access to a property should only be completed where this is approved and where there is an immediate safety risk. Its contractor code of conduct states that contractors must inform the landlord of any problems that may lead to a delay or failure to complete the work within the target completion timescale or agreed appointment time.
  4. The Ombudsman has seen evidence that the resident was informed that her complaint about the contractor had been passed to their manager to address and that the contractor would be spoken to regarding their conduct on 9 June 2022. This was reasonable to ensure the matter was investigated.
  5. Following the incident, it is evident that the resident needed to report the damage to her door. It would have been appropriate for the contractor to inform the landlord of the damage in line with its policies, however, it is unclear as to whether this was done. It was reasonable for the landlord to bring forward the appointment to 15 June 2022, within 7 days of the incident. However, the resident raised specific concern that the door could be opened with a screwdriver and that the lock needed to be “fixed”. It ultimately remains unclear as to whether the door was left adequately secure during this time or whether it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have completed the work within a more urgent timescale.
  6. Within its initial complaint response on 8 September 2022, the landlord apologised for the delay in completing works to repair the door and said an appointment would be arranged. At this stage, the damage to the door had been rectified and the response was inadequate. It did not comment on the reason for the damage and failed to address her concerns about the conduct of the contractor or the distress their actions caused. This was likely to make the resident feel that her concerns had not been taken seriously.
  7. While the landlord said within its final complaint response on 2 February 2023 that a representative of its in-house contractor had called the resident to explain what happened and apologise, it has not provided contemporaneous evidence to confirm what was discussed. It did, however, acknowledge that the operative made a mistake and caused damage and offered compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to her. While the compensation goes some way to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused, its overall offer of £300 compensation for this, its complaint handling delays, and the additional failings identified, is not considered proportionate in view of the overall impact on her.

The resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

  1. In her complaint to the landlord, the resident raised concern about 3 members of the landlord’s staff exhibiting rude behaviour when handling her calls. The landlord failed to adequately address the resident’s concerns regarding the conduct of its staff in its complaint responses and there is limited evidence to suggest that it investigated her concerns.
  2. The landlord would not be able to share the outcome of any disciplinary matters as these would relate to a staff member’s employment which would be confidential. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have demonstrated that it had investigated her allegations (without compromising confidentiality) by commenting on whether it had found any wrong-doing by its staff members and apologising if there was evidence that something inappropriate was said.
  3. The landlord acted appropriately by responding to the resident’s initial concern about how her call had been handled in its communication with her on 9 June 2022. It confirmed that it had spoken to the staff member about their attitude and the way the call was dealt with, and apologised for their conduct.
  4. However, the landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns about the other allegations in relation to staff conduct within its responses and there is a lack of evidence to suggest her complaints were investigated. This is of concern given that the resident said she had felt discriminated against. This was a missed opportunity to investigate her concerns about specific calls while the evidence, such as call recordings, may have been available for it to reach an informed decision on what happened and while the staff members may have recalled the events. Due to the length of time that has now passed, this evidence is unlikely to be available which means that her concerns will remain unaddressed. This was a failing by the landlord in that it did not demonstrate it had taken the resident’s complaint seriously or responded appropriately.

The landlord’s handling of complaint.

  1. The landlord has acknowledged and apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint at both stages of its complaints process and offered an overall figure of compensation taking this into account. However, the Ombudsman has found a number of further failings in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
  2. In this case, the resident has advised that she initially raised a complaint on 9 June 2022. The evidence provided shows that the resident had been in communication with the landlord’s staff, and the staff member she had spoken to emailed her on the same day. While her concerns about the conduct of a staff member were addressed on the day, there is a lack of evidence to suggest that the resident had asked for the complaint to be treated informally and she clearly believed she had raised a formal complaint. The landlord failed to comment on her concern that her complaint had not been addressed sooner within its subsequent formal responses.
  3. The resident then requested that a stage 2 complaint be raised on 27 June 2022 given that the landlord had not responded to her previous complaint from 9 June 2022, and 10 working days had passed in line with its policy. In line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code), landlords must only escalate a complaint to stage 2 once it has completed stage 1 and at the request of the resident. While it is evident that there was a delay in addressing the complaint, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to issue a stage 1 complaint response to allow a resident the opportunity to respond before exhausting the complaints process. It was reasonable for the landlord to respond at stage 1 of its process and not escalate to stage 2 at this stage. It would, however, have been appropriate for the landlord to have explained this to the resident at the time.
  4. It is not disputed that there was a delay in issuing the complaint response between 27 June 2022 and 8 September 2022. There is a lack of evidence to suggest that the reason for the delay was explained or that the resident was adequately updated, which was likely to cause inconvenience. The response itself was poor and only considered a delay in repairing her door rather than matters she had raised in her complaint. It is of concern that despite the resident clearly setting out the reasons for her complaint within her communication on 27 June 2022, the landlord only considered “your damages to your door, your damages to your door frame and your damages to your door lock” and mentioned this 4 times without providing any clear understanding of what had happened.
  5. It is noted that the response said that the resident did not want to talk to it during a phone call about the complaint. Regardless of whether the landlord was able to speak to the resident regarding the complaint or not, it is evident from her complaint communication on 27 June 2022 that the complaint involved a number of aspects and was not limited to repairs to the door. This was not an adequate reason for not addressing her other concerns.
  6. The resident specifically advised that she was dissatisfied with the stage 1 complaint response on 30 September 2022. The landlord should have sought further information regarding the resident’s reasons for dissatisfaction at the time and proceeded to escalate the complaint to avoid delay.
  7. Following the resident’s email requesting to escalate the complaint on 10 November 2022, the landlord failed to acknowledge her escalation and she needed to spend additional time and trouble pursuing her concerns via the assistance of the Ombudsman. The landlord then provided its response on 2 February 2023 which was a significant time since she initially expressed dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response.
  8. The Ombudsman informed the landlord on 9 January 2023 that the complaint related to its handling of the boiler replacement and service received from staff, and that the resident was seeking for the works to be completed as part of the resolution. It is of concern that despite clearly setting out the issues, the landlord again failed to address her concerns in full within its stage 2 complaint response. It also failed to comment on her concern that she had been discriminated against, or confirm its position in relation to her request for specific compensation and damages as a result of its failings. This further demonstrates that it had failed to meaningfully engage with the substance of the complaint and caused additional inconvenience.

Conclusion

  1. In summary, the Ombudsman has found maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint. The combination of the landlord’s poor responses to the resident’s complaint along with the lack of adequate records provided hindered the Ombudsman’s ability to fully investigate the resident’s concerns. While the landlord acknowledged delays in its complaint handling and that time and trouble, and distress and inconvenience was caused to the resident, its offer of £300 compensation is not considered proportionate to the failings in this case. 
  2. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s specific request for compensation and damages. As above, this Service is unable to award damages in the way a court can and the resident may wish to seek advice on pursuing her concerns further if she wishes. The remedies ordered by the Ombudsman are generally moderate and are not intended to be punitive but recognise the impact of any service failings on a resident. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available on our website, sets out that compensation amounts between £600 and £1,000 are considered proportionate in cases where there have been significant failures and the circumstances for maladministration apply. An order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s complaint about her boiler replacement, subsequent repair issues, and the conduct of staff and contractors.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified within the report.
  2. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to pay the resident £1,000, comprised of:
    1. £300 as previously offered within its complaint responses in recognition of the time, trouble, delays, and distress and inconvenience caused by the damage to the resident’s door and handling of the repairs as well as the delay in responding to the complaint at stage 1.
    2. £700 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble caused to the resident as a result of its failure to fully address her concerns in relation to staff conduct, the delays in completing repairs to the property following the boiler installation and failings identified in its handling of the complaint.
  3. Within 6 weeks, the landlord is to complete a management review of the resident’s case to establish points of learning that can be taken to improve its service moving forward. A copy of the review should be provided to the Ombudsman.
  4. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman within the specified timescales.