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

Hyde Housing Association Limited (202226405)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226405

Hyde Housing Association Limited

7 November 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 a window repair.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. He has a health condition the landlord is aware of. The property is a 1-bedroom flat, on the 7th floor of a block. The block is situated next to an 11 track railway line. 
  2. The landlord completed a temporary repair to the resident’s living room window in August 2022 (although the exact date is unknown). The resident raised a complaint in relation to the time taken to complete a permanent repair in November 2022 (the exact date is also unclear). He said the window could not completely close, which exposed the property to weather and noise.
  3. The landlord apologised for the repair delay in its stage 1 complaint response dated 20 December 2022. Its response said that an appointment had been booked with its windows contractor. The resident contacted this service on 30 January 2023 after the repair was not completed, and subsequently escalated the complaint to stage 2 around the end of April 2023.
  4. The landlord upheld the complaint and provided its stage 2 response on 3 July 2023, as follows;
    1. It agreed the window was not repaired when it should have been and apologised for the time it had taken.
    2. It apologised for its poor communication with the resident in relation to how it would repair the window.
    3. It offered £700 compensation made up of;
      1. £150 for the resident’s patience throughout the complaint process.
      2. £200 for the repair delays.
      3. £200 for distress and inconvenience.
      4. £150 for customer effort.
    4. It also said it had arranged for a different contractor (an abseiling contractor) to attend that week, and they would arrange follow-on work.

Post complaints process

  1. The resident believed the compensation offer was insufficient and said he had incurred increased heating costs as the window could not close. The abseiling contractor agreed with the resident it would attend on 6 July 2023, but it is not clear what happened with this appointment. The resident emailed the landlord 4 days later and said: he had not received a definite date the contractor would attend; and he had been busy due to a family circumstance.
  2. On 4 September 2023 the contractor subsequently said it had difficulty sourcing repair materials. However, there was no evidence the landlord or contractor communicated this to the resident. A month later the contractor also said it had “internal staff issues”.
  3. The resident contacted this service again in October 2023 and said the window had not been repaired. He also said: he had organised his own decant, his health condition had worsened, and he attends a hospice for respite car on a weekly basis. The resident said he had been offered £1,250 in compensation after the stage 2 response which he had accepted, but had not yet been paid. There is no evidence to confirm how the offer was made. He contacted his MP in March 2024 and told this service in October 2024 the window had still not been repaired. The landlord was asked for a repair update, but has not responded.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident emailed this service in October 2023 and reported further repair issues with other windows and doors. He said he was unhappy the landlord had not offered to decant him, and he incurred costs because he stayed elsewhere. Whilst his frustration has understandably increased as the months passed and the repair was not completed, this service can only investigate complaints which have completed the landlord’s complaints process and it has had the opportunity to comment on. Therefore, these matters are not considered in this investigation (reflected at paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme). Instead, this report focuses solely on the window repair delays. The resident may wish to raise a further complaint with the landlord if he has not done so already.
  2. The resident has also said that his health condition has worsened. It is not clear whether he believes this is as a direct result of the landlord’s handling of the situation. However, unlike a court, the Ombudsman cannot determine liability and award damages in relation to health issues. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim.

The landlord’s handling of a window repair.

  1. The resident’s occupancy agreement says: the landlord will make sure the structure and exterior of the property are kept repaired; and it will normally give at least 24 hours notice of a repair appointment. It also says the resident must: promptly report any repairs; and allow landlord staff, agents and contractors to enter to inspect or carry out repairs at reasonable hours of the day.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs procedure (dated August 2020) says:
    1. It will attend an emergency repair within 4 hours and make safe within 24 hours.
    2. An ‘anytime repair’ will be completed within 20 working days.
    3. Major repairs or complex works will be undertaken as per the landlord’s stock investment procedure.
  3. The landlord failed to provide repair records to the Ombudsman relating to its handling of this issue, despite being asked to do so. It has therefore not been possible to fully understand what it did or why at any stage of the handling of the repair, which has impacted our ability to carry out a thorough investigation. There were no details of the original reported repair, the emergency repair completed, or whether any follow-on work was agreed. Following the stage 1 complaint there was no evidence to confirm whether it raised the repair as an emergency, anytime or major repair.
  4. The resident said he reported the window had become detached from the frame due to a broken bracket in August 2022. The landlord and its contractors completed a number of inspections of the window. These included when it carried out the emergency repair in August 2022, plus appointments on the 24 November 2022 and 29 December 2022. However, no inspection notes or photos from any visit have been provided. On 27 January 2023 the landlord’s second contractor said it had ordered the correct hinges. However, on 6 March 2023 it emailed the second contractor and asked why scaffolding was required to replace an internal handle, not a hinge. Another internal landlord note on 26 May 2023 asked if it was just the window that needed to be replaced, or the frame too. There was also no evidence to confirm when the landlord decided  an abseiling contractor was required to complete the repair. The evidence suggests the lack of records, or poor quality records, meant the landlord appeared confused as to what specific repair was required. Its poor record keeping in this case cannot but have hindered cohesive and effective management of repair needs at the property, which was a failing.
  5. After the complaint escalation, the landlord was initially proactive in its approach to the repair. It completed an inspection on 24 November 2022 but noted a contractor was required for the repair. Its first contractor rejected the job (unclear why) but it quickly found a second contractor and arranged a further inspection for 29 December 2022, which was a positive step. However, the resident was told it was unlikely the repair would be completed before Christmas 2022, although it is unclear who told him this. He was therefore not at the property from 7 to 22 December 2022 which delayed the contractor’s appointment.
  6. The evidence showed the second contractor ordered the parts needed to complete the repair, but there were delays and difficulty in sourcing the parts and the parts being delivered. It is not clear if or when the parts were delivered. On 7 March 2023 the landlord decided abseiling was required to complete the repair. This was because external cladding to the block meant scaffolding due to be used by the second contractor was not suitable. It is not clear why the landlord did not identify this at an earlier opportunity when it considered how to complete the repair. Some of the delays could have been avoided had the landlord considered using an abseiling contractor in the first instance. Further, there was no evidence it contacted an available abseiling contractor until May 2023, 2 months after it identified an abseiling contractor was required, which contributed to the delays and represents a further failing.
  7. The Ombudsman acknowledges that once the landlord decided to use the abseiling contractor, it was again proactive in its attempts to resolve the repair throughout May and June 2023. However, due to the lack of records it was not clear exactly what happened with 4 scheduled appointments in May 2023 and June 2023. The evidence suggests the resident was away for some or part of the time, as he responded to an email from the abseiling contractor on 26 June 2023 and said he was away until 3 July 2023 which further delayed the repair.
  8. Another factor in the repair delays was multiple instances of communication failures between parties, and no one took responsibility for the repair. The evidence showed from the second contractors appointment on 29 December 2022 to 6 March 2023 the landlord chased for updates regarding the parts for the repair/quote on 4 occasions. However, it could have been more proactive in doing so. There was also little evidence it updated the resident regularly or managed his expectations during this time, which was a failing and caused him inconvenience having to chase the landlord for updates.
  9. The abseiling contractor said it tried to contact the resident throughout May 2023, but he did not respond. The resident then chased the landlord for an update on 30 May 2023. There was no evidence the decision to use a abseiling contractor was communicated to him until the following day. Some of the delays could have been avoided had the resident been notified of the change of contractor and approach to the repair, which represents a further failing.
  10. Whilst the landlord did acknowledge its failings (which included poor communication with the resident) in its stage 2 complaint response, the poor communication continued. Following the failed 6 July 2023 contractor appointment, it was a further 2 weeks before the contractor tried to reschedule the appointment. The resident had to chase the landlord for an update which caused further inconvenience on 29 August 2023, another 5 weeks later. The evidence suggests the landlord was only prompted to chase its contractor by the resident’s email.
  11. The evidence showed the resident asked for a decant in December 2022, however it is not clear what the landlord said in response. It is not clear how often, or how long the resident stayed at other accommodation in total. However, there was no evidence he chased the repair on a daily or weekly basis with a high degree of urgency after the temporary repair. There was also no evidence he raised the decant matter as part of the formal complaint. Having to stay at other accommodation would undoubtedly have caused him some inconvenience as he felt compelled to stay elsewhere. The landlord could have contacted the resident to discuss a decant, however there is no evidence it did this.
  12. It is also acknowledged there were external factors beyond the landlord’s control which contributed to the repair delay, in particular sourcing correct parts. The landlord and its contractor had difficulty making successful contact with the resident, there were a number of occasions where he was away from the property (and did not return to let contractors in), and he was also impacted by a family circumstance. The Ombudsman further acknowledges there were times it proactively tried to resolve the repair. However these only appeared to be prompted by the resident’s complaint escalations, which was not a reasonable approach to take.
  13. The landlord (as the body in a contractual agreement with the resident) is ultimately responsible for the repair, regardless of whether it outsources the work to a contractor. With that in mind, it should have done more to follow up with both the resident and its contractors rather than leaving it to the resident to chase for updates. Its lack of urgency and monitoring of the repair, coupled with contractor failings, poor communication, and poor record keeping ultimately left the resident with a broken window for an unreasonable length of time. This caused him significant distress and inconvenience, affected his enjoyment of the property, and ultimately could have led to a breakdown in the landlord/resident relationship.
  14. The landlord acknowledged its failings in its stage 2 response. The Ombudsman welcomes and encourages landlords to proactively revisit opportunities for the resolution of a complaint after the stage 2 response and a landlord is entitled to review its position. It is not clear from the evidence how or why the compensation offer was increased after the stage 2 response in October 2023, but it was reasonable it did so. However, despite recognising the impact on the resident post stage 2, the issue remains outstanding. Given the time that has passed, it should have scheduled or followed up the repair at this point, but there is no evidence it did so. Two years is a significant period of time for the resident to live with a window in need of repair. However, the landlord’s final compensation offer is in line with our remedies guidance, and there is not enough evidence to warrant an order for the landlord to further increase the compensation. This is due to the reasons which were out of the landlord’s control. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord’s overall handling of the repair has been poor and it has still not put things right. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord and an order has been made to rectify this.

Complaint Handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy outlines that it aims to respond to Stage 1 complaints as soon as is reasonably possible and not later than ten working days (2 weeks). The complaint was made around 11 November 2022, but the initial response was not issued until 20 December 2022, 27 working days later, over double the policy timeframe which was a failing.
  2. Although the landlord apologised for the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the repair delays, it did not offer an apology for the delayed stage 1 response. Further, it did not appear to consider an offer of any compensation for the repair delay. This was not reasonable as the permanent repair had been outstanding for over 3 months by the time the stage 1 response was issued.
  3. There was no evidence the landlord learnt from its error as the stage two response was also delayed. The landlord’s policy states that a stage two response should be sent as soon as is practical, and not later than twenty working days from the complaint escalation. The resident requested to escalate the complaint around 20 April 2023. However, the response was not issued until 3 July 2023, 50 working days later. In line with section 6.4 of the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), there was no evidence the landlord explained the reasons for the delayed response or requested an extension. The length of time it took to issue the stage two response was significantly outside its policy timescale and meant the resident was not able to bring her complaint to this service for investigation, which were further failings. Finally, whilst only a minor issue, there was a mistake in the stage 2 response that (even though the compensation breakdown was outlined), could have led the resident to believe he would receive £750 in compensation, not £700.
  4. It is acknowledged that the landlord accepted that there were service failures within its complaint handling and offered £150 in compensation to acknowledge this. Whilst the compensation offered in the stage 2 response for the overall handling of the situation was reasonable at the time, it is not clear what happened after that. The resident said the compensation offer was increased to £1,250, however it is not clear what the increase was for. Section 6.20 of the Code says the stage 2 response is the landlord’s final response. The increased offer should therefore have been made as part of the stage 2 response. The resident said there were further issues receiving the compensation payment. Overall, the landlord’s complaint handing was severely protracted and the offer made was not proportionate to the failings identified in this investigation. The Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration on the landlord’s complaint handling, and a further payment of £150 is ordered.

Determination

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of a window repair.
  2. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Contact the resident and provide its position in relation to the window repair. An action plan should be agreed with the resident as to when the repair will be completed. 
    3. Pay directly to the resident, and not offset against any monies owed £1,400 compensation (less £1,250 if this has already been paid) for the inconvenience, distress, time and trouble caused by its failings.
    4. Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this service.

Recommendation

  1. The Ombudsman acknowledges there have been numerous other cases which have highlighted issues with the landlord’s record keeping around this time. The landlord has self-assessed against out Spotlight report and it is encouraged to continue with the positive changes it said it would make.