Hyde Housing Association Limited (202233536)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233536

Hyde Housing Association Limited

29 October 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. response to the resident’s reports of mice in the property.
2. response to the resident’s reports of a leak into the property.
3. handling of repairs to damaged walls.
We have also considered the landlord’s:
1. record keeping.
2. complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2 bedroom flat.
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out timescales in which it aims to complete repairs. It says that repairs that are not an emergency will be completed within 20 working days. It operates a 2 stage complaints policy. It aims to respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and to those at stage 2 within 20 working days.
Repair records show that the resident contacted the landlord in January 2022, reporting large cracks on walls in his bedroom, bathroom and kitchen. On 16 June 2022 he complained to the landlord. He said he was still waiting for repairs at his home to be resolved. The same day the landlord acknowledged the complaint. It said it was 5 to 6 weeks behind with complaint enquiries. It said it would raise the resident’s repair concerns with the contractor in the meantime. At the end of June and beginning of July 2022 representatives for the resident contacted the landlord. They said:
1. the resident had ongoing issues with ceiling disrepair and cracks in his walls.
2. he was experiencing a water leak into his flat when it rained.
3. a contractor and surveyor for the landlord had attended in May 2022 but the resident had heard nothing following this visit.
In July 2022 a surveyor for the landlord noted an earlier attendance at the resident’s property. They said this was following his reports of an “active leak and subsidence”. They noted:
1. there was evidence of a previous leak, but roof work was complete and damp readings showed walls to be dry.
2. there were large holes in the walls of the bedroom, kitchen and bathroom, and the resident said he did not know how this had happened.
3. repairs to the damaged walls were rechargeable, however, on this occasion it would complete the work without charge.
On 16 August 2022 the resident contacted the landlord again. He said it needed to do something about the leak he was experiencing. The next day the landlord requested that its contractor raise roof works and scaffolding. The contractor confirmed scaffolding and roof work had been booked for the following week. On 27 August 2022 the resident told the landlord that scaffolding had been erected at the property that week. However, he said he had experienced 2 leaks that week when it rained.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 1 September 2022. It said:
1. it had completed work to the chimney and roof on 25 August 2022 to resolve the leak.
2. the scaffolding would remain in place for a short time to ensure the leak had been fully resolved.
3. its contractor would now make an appointment to consider what internal work was needed to the property.
4. the contractor would complete repair work to the resident’s walls.
The landlord noted that its surveyor had attended to inspect the resident’s flat in May 2022. It said that damp meter reading at that time showed the walls to be dry. It said the surveyor had also found walls within the property had been damaged and there was no evidence of structural issues. It said this damage appeared to have been caused by someone within the resident’s home. It said any damage by residents was chargeable. The landlord awarded the resident £250 compensation. This was made up of:
1. £150 for the delay in repairing the roof.
2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
The landlord raised internal remedial work on 8 September 2022. On 15 September 2022 the resident requested escalation of his complaint. He said the roof was still leaking and he did not think repairs had been completed. On 16 September 2022 the landlord’s contractor told the landlord that:
1. it had completed the roof work and had left the scaffolding in situ so it could monitor the leak.
2. it had attended the resident’s property since whenever it rained to check for a leak but no one had answered the door.
3. it had attended to plaster walls. It had rained while the contractor was on site and they saw no evidence of a leak.
At the beginning of October 2022, the resident again reported an ongoing leak into his property. The landlord recorded on 20 October 2022 that a new leak had been identified which it said appeared to be due to missing lead flashing. It requested new scaffolding.
On 28 November 2023 the resident again asked that the landlord escalate his complaint. He said, apart from plastering to the walls in his bathroom and kitchen, he was still waiting for the repair work outlined in the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response. He said he wanted to know when repairs would be completed.
On 8 February 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said it was sorry the resident had waited so long for the repairs issues to be resolved. It said its contractors had confirmed all work had been booked. It said:
1. its contractor would attend to complete work to the resident’s ceiling on 15 February 2023.
2. the resident said that the contractor had failed to plaster his walls. It said it had previously found that walls had been damaged by a sharp object. However, it said its contractor would repair this damage on 15 February 2023.
3. any further damage caused by the resident would be charged to him.
The landlord acknowledged that it had not responded quickly enough to the reported repairs. It said it had also failed to address these issues appropriately since the resident submitted his complaint. It said it had increased its award of compensation to £350. This was made up of:
1. £50 for the delay acknowledging the complaint.
2. £50 for complaint handling failings.
3. £50 for time and trouble.
4. £50 for distress and inconvenience.
5. £150 for the delays completing the repairs.
Later in February 2023 the resident said the landlord had not attended as agreed to patch up his ceiling. He said an operative told him that a roofer would be attending. That day the landlord noted it was due to attend on 28 February 2023. On 20 March 2023 the resident told the landlord of a further roof leak. He said he had thought the issue had been “fixed”. Subsequently he made a further complaint to the landlord. It issued a stage 1 response to the resident in July 2023, addressing its handling of this further leak.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

Response to the resident’s reports of mice in the property

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which have not completed the internal complaints process, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
During his initial complaint to the landlord in June 2022 the resident raised concerns about its handling of his reports of mice at the property. While this was addressed by the landlord in its stage 1 complaint response of September 2022, there is no evidence the matter was raised by the resident during subsequent requests, in September and November 2022, for his complaint to be escalated. Subsequently the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of February 2023 did not address this issue. This complaint has therefore not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure and there is no evidence that the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s concerns. As such, in line with paragraph 42.a of the Scheme the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of mice at the property falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The resident has told us that this issue has since been resolved satisfactorily.

Scope of investigation

We acknowledge that in March 2023 the resident reported to the landlord the return of a roof leak. The landlord subsequently issued a further stage 1 complaint response. We have seen no evidence that the resident requested escalation of this complaint or that he received a stage 2 complaint response from the landlord about it. We also acknowledge that the resident subsequently experienced other issues with leaks into his property.
In the interest of fairness, the landlord should have the opportunity to fully consider and respond to any ongoing concerns the resident has about its handling of leak issues since its stage 2 complaint response of February 2023. This would allow it to investigate and respond to the resident’s concerns in the first instance. Should the resident remain unhappy about the response from the landlord, he can then refer the complaint back to us once he has exhausted its complaints procedure. This investigation will therefore focus on issues raised and considered by the landlord up to its stage 2 complaint response of February 2023.

Response to the resident’s reports of a leak into the property.

The landlord said in its stage 1 complaint response of September 2022 that its surveyor had attended the resident’s property in May 2022. This attendance is confirmed by the resident, and by the surveyor in subsequent internal communication. The surveyor noted the resident had reported an active leak. But this report is not detailed in the landlord’s repair records. Nor did it make adequate contemporaneous record of its inspection of the property in May 2022. These were record keeping failings. The landlord should have made appropriate and accurate records of repair reports received, and of what it did in response to these. While the landlord’s surveyor later noted they had found no evidence of an active leak, appropriate records would have helped it monitor this and consider steps should it receive further reports from the resident. Such records would also have demonstrated how the landlord was responding to repair reports in line with its responsibilities and timescales set out in its repairs policy.
The landlord’s surveyor subsequently stated that they had raised remedial work to the ceiling. But repair records do not show this work was raised following the inspection in May 2022. That was a further record keeping failing. Clear records of the remedial work required would have helped the landlord to track the progress of the work. Without doing so it is difficult to see how it could effectively monitor the repair.
Through his representative, the resident told the landlord in early July 2022 that he was experiencing an ongoing leak into his property when it rained. Later in July 2022 the landlord’s surveyor detailed in internal emails that they had attended the resident’s property. However, it is unclear whether this communication related to a further attendance to inspect issues or to the earlier inspection in May 2022. The surveyor’s email did not specify when the inspection had occurred, and records we have seen do not detail any inspection of the property in July 2022. Nor do records show any communication with the resident to arrange such a visit. The lack of adequate and clear record keeping by the landlord means that it cannot demonstrate that it responded appropriately to investigate the report of an ongoing leak in July 2022.
The resident again raised concerns about the leak on 16 August 2022. Records show the landlord then took appropriate steps to organise scaffolding and roof works later that month. It later said work to the roof and chimney was completed on 25 August 2022. But, again, the landlord failed to make appropriate record of the work. These records were needed by the landlord. Not only would these demonstrate how it responded to the repair report, they could also help it consider appropriate next steps should issues persist.
In its stage 1 complaint response of September 2022 the landlord said it would leave the scaffolding in place for a short time to monitor the roof repair. That was reasonable. But the resident had told the landlord on 27 August 2022 that he had experienced further leaks that week after rain. He expressed concerns again, on 15 September 2022, that the leak was ongoing. The landlord’s contractor noted its earlier attempts to inspect the resident’s property after rain. It said the resident had not answered his door. The contractor also said its operative had not seen evidence of an ongoing leak when they attended to plaster walls. But, given the resident’s ongoing concerns about a leak, the landlord should reasonably have taken more proactive steps to investigate this. It is acknowledged that the contractors wanted to inspect after recent rain. But it is clear it had not successfully managed to do so by knocking the resident’s door without notice. Given this, the landlord should have appropriately considered emailing or calling the resident in advance to arrange an internal inspection. That there is no evidence it considered or attempted this action is a failing.
The resident told the landlord on 3 October 2022 that the leak from the roof was still unresolved. At this time, he sent a recording of the leak, showing water dripping from his ceiling. Following this, the landlord requested a survey of the property. While that was appropriate, as noted above, it should have acted earlier to investigate the leak issues resident continued to raise following the repair work in August 2022. Later in October 2022 the landlord recorded that it had identified a leak in a new location and that further scaffolding was needed. But it did not detail any of the work it subsequently completed. That was a further record keeping failing, which means it cannot adequately demonstrate how it responded to resolve this leak. We acknowledge, however, that the resident made no further leak reports until 20 March 2023. That indicates that some work had been completed to address the leak identified in October 2022. Nonetheless, the landlord should have made clear record of any work it completed.
We acknowledge that the further leak issues identified in October 2022 would have delayed the landlord completing the necessary internal repair work. It was reasonable to trace and remedy any further leak before continuing with internal repair work. But it is apparent that it did not maintain appropriate communication with the resident about this, or any clear oversight of the work. It could not have effectively done so as it made no clear records of the work completed. While it noted it had booked a visit to the property for 25 November 2022 it did not record what it did at this time, or even if its attendance went ahead. In his email to the landlord later in November 2022, the resident said that work had been completed to the walls in his bathroom and kitchen. He said he was still waiting for repairs to his ceiling. The resident’s frustration about the progress of work is apparent at this time. He said he thought the landlord was “employing delay tactics”. Had it maintained appropriate oversight of the work, it could have communicated a clear plan for the work and explained reasons for any delays. But instead, there is no evidence of further work or contact with the resident until February 2023.
When the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 8 February 2023 it said its contractor would attend to complete internal repairs on 15 February 2023. But despite this assurance, there is no evidence its contractor attempted work on that day, or explained to the resident why it was not doing so. Instead, the resident had to chase the landlord again to query why internal repair work had not proceeded. That would have added to his frustration about the length of time repairs had already been outstanding. If there was a reason it did not complete repairs at this time the landlord should reasonably have communicated this to the resident in advance. That was particularly so as it had agreed this work as part of the complaint resolution. Records do not detail any reason why internal repair work did not proceed on 15 February 2023 as had been agreed. We acknowledge, however, that the further leak reported by the resident in March 2023 would have impacted on the progress of the internal repair work.
We have found a number of failings in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak into the property. It failed to make adequate records of its inspections or work completed to remedy the leak. It delayed in responding to the resident’s report of a leak, and in raising remedial work. It also delayed in acting on the resident’s reports that the leak had not been rectified. We acknowledge some of the challenges for the landlord, given the reoccurrence of the leak. But we have also found that it did not communicate effectively with resident about when work would be completed or why internal work was not progressing. Nor did it take adequate steps to monitor the progress of that work. Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak. We have considered the impact of its failings further below.

Handling of repairs to damaged walls.

Records show that the resident raised a report of large cracks in walls in January 2022. But there is no evidence the landlord appropriately responded to the report at this time. In line with its repair policy it should have responded to this concern within 20 working days. That it cannot demonstrate it did so is a failing. It later said it attended to inspect the resident’s concerns about his walls in May 2022. But, as noted earlier, its records of this inspection are inadequate. The landlord’s contractor later detailed their attendance at the property in internal emails in July 2022. But it is unclear if these both related to the inspection in May 2022 or a further inspection. However it is clear from these emails that the landlord considered damage to walls had been caused by someone within the resident’s property.
The resident said in July 2022 that he heard nothing further from the landlord following the inspection of May 2022. In line with its rechargeable repairs procedure, it was reasonable for the landlord to consider a charge for work if it considered damage had been caused by a resident (or someone in his property). But it was also reasonable for it to clearly and promptly communicate its decision about this. We have found no evidence the landlord did so. The surveyor noted on 7 July 2022 that they had found the found holes in plaster to be rechargeable to the resident, and that they were costing the work before informing the resident of this. By 19 July 2022 the surveyor noted that, while work was rechargeable, it would complete the repairs without cost to the resident. Due to inadequate record keeping by the landlord, it is unclear what or when it communicated to the resident about this. The resident had reported concerns about his walls in January 2022. That he was still waiting for confirmation about repairs to address these by July 2022 was a failing by the landlord. It should reasonably have told him how these repairs would be completed far earlier, whether chargeable or not.
When the landlord responded to the resident’s initial complaint in September 2022, it again failed to provide clarity about how work would be completed to address damage to the walls. It said that repairs needed as a result of damage by resident were chargeable. But it did not clearly explain that it had decided to complete the work without charge, in line with its surveyor’s internal email July 2022. The landlord should reasonably have clarified this in its stage 1 response. In addition, after agreeing this work in July 2023, it should have taken appropriate action to raise it. But there is no evidence it raised work until 8 September 2022. That was a further delay, which compounded its earlier delay acting on the resident’s report of January 2022.
As outlined earlier, we have found several failings in the landlord’s monitoring of internal repair work. While we acknowledge that progress may have been affected by further leaks, it failed to maintain appropriate oversight of the work. Nor did it communicate reasonably with the resident about it. Overall, we have found maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to damaged walls.

Compensation offered by the landlord

The landlord offered the resident compensation of £250 in its stage 1 response of September 2022. It said that this was in recognition of the delay in repairing the roof and the distress and inconvenience caused. In its stage 2 complaint response it said it had increased its award of compensation to £350, £100 of which was for complaint handling failings. However, it is unclear from its stage 2 response whether the £350 offered was intended to be in addition to the £250 previously awarded. For instance, its stage 1 response offered the resident £100 compensation for distress and inconvenience. But instead of an increased award in respect of this, its stage 2 response offered £50 for distress and inconvenience. This indicates the stage 2 award of £350 may have been intended as an additional award. The landlord did not provide clarification of this when we queried it.
Regardless of whether the award it made in its stage 2 response was intended as a supplementary amount to that awarded at stage 1, we do not consider it adequately recognises the impact of its failings. The resident has advised us that all leaks and internal repairs relating to this investigation are now complete. However, we have found failings in the landlord’s handling of repair work between January 2022 and February 2023. It also failed to communicate appropriately with the resident during this time, adding to the frustration he was experiencing about work not proceeding as agreed. With reference to circumstances, and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we consider that a further award is appropriate to recognise the full impact of the landlord’s failings.

Complaint handling

The resident complained to the landlord on 15 June 2022. In response to this, it informed him that it was 5 to 6 weeks behind in responding to complaints. While this delay would undoubtedly cause frustration for the resident, it was appropriate for the landlord inform him of it at an early stage. Records show that by 28 July 2022 the resident had told the landlord that he did not want it to make further contact with him. Following this, the landlord shut down the complaint until the resident made further contact on 16 August 2022. That was reasonable given the resident’s earlier request. However, in its eventual stage 1 complaint response it should still have acknowledged the earlier delay in responding to the resident’s complaint and apologised for this. That it did not do so was a failing and a missed opportunity.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was more significantly delayed. The resident requested escalation of his complaint on 15 September 2022. But there is no evidence the landlord took appropriate steps to escalate the matter. Its eventual stage 2 response was not until nearly 5 months later. The evidence suggests that much of this was due to the landlord’s failure to ensure timely escalation of the complaint. The landlord acknowledged complaint handling failings in its stage 2 complaint response. It awarded £100 for these. However, that amount did not adequately compensate the resident for the frustration he experienced while waiting for the landlord to respond to his complaint, or the time and trouble he expended chasing its stage 2 response. We have also identified other complaint handling. As noted above, the landlord failed to be clear in it stage 1 response about whether work to the resident’s wall would be chargeable. It also failed to be clear about the award of compensation it was making at stage 2, and whether this was in addition to that made during its stage 1 response.
By the time the landlord issued its stage 2 response, the resident had been waiting more than 8 months for internal repair work. While the landlord provided a commitment to complete this work on 15 February 2023, it took no apparent steps to monitor the work. It should reasonably have done so. That was a further failing. It caused the resident frustration and time and trouble as he needed to chase work when it was not completed. Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. So far it has awarded £100 in recognition of complaint handling failings. That amount does not go far enough. With consideration of the circumstances, and with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, a further award has been ordered. This is aimed at recognising the full impact of the landlord’s complaint handling failings.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s handling of his reports of mice at the property falls outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak into the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to damaged walls.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

With 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. write to apologise to the resident for the impact of the failings identified in this report.
2. pay the resident compensation of £1,000, made up of:
  1. £500 for the impact of failings in its response to the resident’s reports of a leak into the property This includes compensation already awarded by the landlord.
  2. £200 for the impact of failings in its handling of repairs to damaged walls. This includes compensation already awarded by the landlord.
  3. £300 for the impact of its complaint handling failings. This included the £100 the landlord has already awarded in respect of this.
  4. compensation the landlord has already paid to the resident, in respect of its complaint responses of September 2022 and February 2023, should be deducted from the total.
3. remind complaint handling staff of the importance of:
  1. timely escalation of complaints.
  2. being clear about compensation offered at stage 2, and whether these are in addition to previous awards.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. review repairs completed to the roof and consider whether it has now taken adequate and appropriate steps to resolve all leak concerns.
2. undertake a review of the failings identified in this report, specifically around record keeping and monitoring of repair work. It should consider whether adequate processes and guidance are now in place to ensure these failings are not repeated.

Recommendations

The resident has told us that he is still waiting for the landlord to address a damp and mould issue following resolution of the latest roof leak. He also said that a bedroom radiator has not worked properly since internal repairs. The landlord should contact the resident within 2 weeks of this report to discuss these internal repair concerns.