Hyde Housing Association Limited (202303931)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303931

Hyde Housing Association Limited

10 January 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 handling of water ingress into the property resulting in damp and mould.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The property is a 2-bedroom flat. The proprietorship register shows the leaseholder purchased the leasehold in September 2016. The landlord is a housing association. The leaseholder let the flat to a tenant.

Scope of investigation

The leaseholder said the landlord’s delay in resolving the water ingress caused their tenant to end their tenancy, causing a financial loss. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or award damages. A claim for loss of rent is something better suited for consideration by an insurer via a landlord insurance policy or rent guarantee policy. If this type of insurance was not held by the leaseholder in his capacity as a landlord, he would need to seek independent or legal advice to see if there are other options available to him.
Paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body. It is noted the leaseholder contacted the buildings insurer for the property. If he is dissatisfied with the response from said insurer, it is open for him to contact the Financial Ombudsman Service, the alternative dispute resolution body for regulated financial services.
The leaseholder is dissatisfied that he will be charged for a percentage of the roof repair cost via a service charge. Paragraph 42(d) of the Scheme sets out the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which in its opinion concern the level of service charge. The body that has jurisdiction to consider complaints about the level of the service charge is the First-Tier Tribunal which can determine the appropriate level and amount of service charges recoverable by a landlord; decide if the charges were reasonably incurred; by whom they are payable, and when.
Within the leaseholder’s communication with this Service after the landlord’s stage 2 response, he said there were delays fixing his bathroom ceiling and a contractor turned up and was not able to do the work. He said this caused him stress and a loss of time. This Service cannot investigate aspects of a complaint which have not exhausted a landlord’s complaint procedure. The landlord needs to be given the opportunity to formally respond. As such, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to investigate and respond to his concern.

Relevant legislation, standards, and policies

The lease states the landlord will maintain and keep in repair the main structure of the building including the foundations, the roof, drains, gutters, and external pipes thereof.
The landlord’s homeowner’s responsibilities guide sets out that a claim can be made on the buildings insurance for any damage or repairs caused by a leak, as the landlord will not complete any associated repairs inside a leasehold property.
The landlord’s responsive repairs procedure sets out it will attend an emergency repair within 4 hours and make it safe within 24 hours. An ‘any time repair’ will be completed within 20 working days. Major repairs or complex works will be undertaken as per its stock investment procedures.
Section 151 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 introduced requirements for consulting leaseholders before carrying out qualifying work. The landlord’s website explains it must go through a Section 20 consultation when the cost of major repairs is more than £250 per home.
There are some occasions when landlords may not follow the Section 20 procedures. In these cases, landlords may apply to the First Tier Property Tribunal for dispensation. This is where the Tribunal may decide it is reasonable for the landlord not to comply with the requirements of Section 20.
The landlord has the following compensation tariffs:
1. Delay – up to £100 for low impact, £250 for medium impact, and £500 for major impact.
2. Distress and inconvenience – up to £100 for low impact, £250 for medium impact, and £500 for major impact with injury to health.
3. Time and trouble – up to £50.

Summary of events

On 24 November 2022, the letting agent emailed the leaseholder saying their tenant had reported damp in the lounge, bedroom, and bathroom.
The letting agent sent a further email to the leaseholder on 1 December 2022, stating the tenant was still having bad damp issues despite wiping down and ventilating the property. The letting agent reported this to the landlord the same day.
No records have been provided to this Service to evidence what occurred between 1 December 2022 and 22 February 2023.
On 22 February 2023, the letting agent shared photos of the damp with the landlord. They said the landlord confirmed the roof would be replaced mid-March 2023 and asked it to confirm the date the works would begin and a timeframe for completion. It emphasised there was a 2-year-old child living in the property who was on their third round of antibiotics. It asked for a date for temporary repairs to help with the mould and damp.
The landlord informed the leaseholder on 23 February 2023 that a mould wash had been booked for 2 March 2023.
The landlord sent an email internally on 8 March 2023 stating that scaffolding was due to be erected on 15 March 2023, with roofing works to begin on 20 March 2023.
This Service has not had sight of the initial complaint made by the leaseholder to the landlord. Records indicate the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 10 March 2023 and discussed it via telephone. The leaseholder followed up with an email and said:
1. Since mid-December 2022, he had spoken to and met many of the landlord’s staff members and each time had to repeat the situation with the roof. The landlord did not return calls to the letting agent on many occasions.
2. There was a missed appointment where he was left waiting at the property for 2 hours and no-one turned up.
3. His tenant had a young child who had been unwell with back-to-back chest infections. In the doctor’s view, these were caused by the living conditions.
4. His tenant’s father threatened him with legal action, causing stress and sleepless nights. He had been forced to return £787 in rent to his tenant as the property was not fit to live in at times.
5. The property had 2 mould washes.
6. He must replace the bathroom ceiling and insulation.
7. He was unsure what damage had been caused to the bedroom and lounge walls and ceilings.
The landlord spoke to the leaseholder on 13 March 2023 to confirm the repair start date was as previously agreed, but this would depend on the weather on the day.
The leaseholder asked for an update on 23 March 2023. He said:
1. His tenant complained about water coming through the roof and her child’s toys and bedding getting wet.
2. His tenant gave notice to move out, leaving him without income.
3. He was in touch with the home repairs team however they could not answer questions about compensation or future demands from the landlord regarding repair costs.
4. He wanted clarification regarding the attendance maintenance charge for when his next service charge statement was issued.
5. There was damage to his property, a loss of income and complaints/threats of legal action from both his tenant and her father.
The same day, the landlord said compensation would be addressed within its complaint response and enquiries had been made regarding service charges and his loss of income.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 27 March 2023. It said:
1. It apologised for not completing the repairs sooner and upheld the complaint.
2. Roof repairs started on 20 March 2023 and were due to be completed by 31 March 2023.
3. Roof insulation would be fitted on 14 April 2023.
4. A mould wash had been arranged for 25 April 2023.
5. Following completion of the works, it would repair the bathroom ceiling.
6. It provided an email address and telephone number for the team overseeing the repair through to completion.
7. The leak was reported in December 2022 and attended to, however it failed to follow up and arrange the repairs within its service level agreement.
8. There were delays as a Section 20 process was needed.
9. There would be no additional attendance charges. All work costs would be within the Section 20 process which would be issued within the next 18 months.
10. It recognised the leaseholder contacted it to complain at the beginning of March 2023. It apologised for responding outside of its expected response time and for the inconvenience caused.
11. It must get quicker at responding to repairs when they are initially reported, along with when they need to be escalated due to dissatisfaction with service. It was undertaking several actions within the business to ensure it could do this across all service areas.
12. It offered £600 compensation comprised of:
  1. £50 for the delay acknowledging the complaint.
  2. £50 for the poor communication and the resident’s time and trouble.
  3. £250 for the delay completing the repairs.
  4. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
The leaseholder responded the same day. He said the complaint response did not offer any information as to the damage to the bathroom ceiling or redecoration in the main bedroom from water damage. Further, it offered no information about what the landlord would charge him for the roof repair which may be on his next service charge. He said the matter had taken a huge toll on him.
The landlord replied to the leaseholder the same day. It confirmed it would repair the bathroom ceiling. It said it had applied for dispensation to ask the Tribunal to allow the landlord to recharge the works without going through the Section 20 process because the works were urgent. However, it would not be able to confirm this until the Tribunal made a decision.
On 29 March 2023, the landlord explained roof repairs were responsive, and it does not have a maintenance program that proactively inspects roofs. It added that any agreement between the leaseholder and his tenant was something it could not get involved in. It provided the email address for its insurance service team should the leaseholder want to discuss this further.
The leaseholder responded the same day. He said he did not know whether the landlord would attempt to charge him for a percentage of the roof repair. He asked the landlord how he could recoup his lost rent and to explain what they meant by, “a maintenance program which proactively inspects roofs.”
There was an internal email from the landlord dated 3 April 2023 in which it stated the leaseholder could try to claim for his loss through the buildings insurance policy. It said the delay was due to the availability of contractors to do the work and it proactively sought out other measures to assist during the period it had to wait for works to begin. Dehumidifiers were sent to the property and mould washes were arranged.
The leaseholder chased for a response to his question about maintenance charges on 12 April 2023. The landlord said he would not be charged for any annual surveys. However, following the Tribunal, the cost of the roof repair would likely be split between all the properties covered by the roof and would be in his service charge statement. This would be around 25% of the cost of the roof repair. It directed the leaseholder to the home ownership team if he required further information.
On 12 April 2023, the leaseholder said he was unhappy with the 25% charge. He said the compensation offered of £600 did not cover his loss or the communication issues experienced. On 20 April 2023, he reiterated the above and said he had paid for the redecoration and repair to the kitchen and main bedroom which the landlord had not addressed. He said for 3 months he had to endure and worry about the condition of his property, making numerous calls to the landlord and receiving legal threats from his tenant.
The landlord formally responded on 24 April 2023. It said no new evidence had been provided and it would not be changing its decision. It confirmed this was its final response and provided referral rights to this Service.

Events after the end of the formal complaint process

The leaseholder emailed this Service on 2 May 2023. He said he was not seeking reimbursement of the redecorations. However, he wanted to be compensated for the loss of rent. He also felt he should not be charged for the roof repair due to the issues experienced. He further explained the impact on him due to stress, sleepless nights, threats of legal action and the time and trouble spent dealing with phone calls and emails.
The leaseholder said a contractor attended his property on 30 May 2023 to repair the bathroom ceiling, however he was unable to carry out the required work.
The insurer emailed the leaseholder on 30 August 2023. It asked him to provide repair quotes, photos of the damage and confirmation the leak had been fixed. It said it had requested this information on 3 previous occasions.
On 31 August 2023, the leaseholder told this Service the ceiling repair had been completed.

Assessment and findings

Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, the Ombudsman investigates whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould states a landlord should have a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould and must ensure its response to reports of the above are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. Additionally, we expect landlords to ensure there is effective internal communication between teams and departments and to ensure one team or individual has overall responsibility for ensuring reports relating to damp and mould are resolved, including follow up or aftercare. The landlord has not evidenced that it followed best practice in this case.
The Ombudsman appreciates it may be difficult to identify the reason a property is damp. This is why investigations must be managed effectively and handled with a sense of urgency, to identify and resolve the problem as soon as possible. It is not disputed that a letting agent (on behalf of the leaseholder) reported the damp in December 2022. The landlord said it attended to inspect a leak/water ingress from the roof, but it failed to follow up. No report from the landlord’s initial attendance has been provided to this Service, nor evidence of its follow-on actions. This was inappropriate in the circumstances. The landlord failed to evidence that it took the report of damp seriously.
In this case, it is difficult to determine the exact course of events due to the lack of evidence. This Service has not been provided with a comprehensive record of communication between the landlord and the leaseholder, or a detailed repair log going back to the initial report of damp/water ingress in December 2022. Additionally, the landlord provided no evidence surrounding the Section 20 consultation process that it referenced within its stage 1 complaint response as a reason for the repair delay.
It is vital landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of events. This helps the Ombudsman to understand the landlord’s actions and decision making at the time. If this Service investigates a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to determine that an action took place or that the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies. From the limited evidence available, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that the landlord treated the leaseholder fairly or reasonably in the circumstances.
Within the leaseholder’s complaint, he referenced a significant amount of contact with the landlord via email and telephone. He also a mentioned an appointment at the property which the landlord missed. It is a concern that the landlord has not provided a full record of its communication and meetings with the leaseholder. This is another record keeping failure. Within the evidence available, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it effectively managed the leaseholder’s expectations from December 2022 to February 2023.
The lack of evidence provided by the landlord had a significant impact on this investigation when considering the delays completing the repairs and the landlord’s communication with its leaseholder. As such, the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration for record keeping and ordered appropriate compensation.
A landlord is required by law to consult with all leaseholders if the amount any one leaseholder would have to pay towards qualifying work would be more than £250 unless it applied for dispensation from the First Tier Property Tribunal. The Ombudsman recognises this process can impact the timeliness of a repair. In this situation, we would expect the landlord to complete a risk assessment and to take mitigating actions to reduce the impact of the outstanding repair. The Ombudsman notes the landlord provided a dehumidifier and completed mould washes. However, it failed to evidence that it took mitigating actions at the earliest opportunity or assessed the risk to the occupants of the property. This was a service failure.
The landlord’s complaint response was positive and customer focused to acknowledge and apologise for issues; confirm steps were being taken to improve service; and to award compensation for the impact on the leaseholder. The landlord acted appropriately within its response to set out dates for the remedial works and provide the contact details of the team overseeing these.
The Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (available on our website) sets out three compensation ranges we consider when determining cases. The £600 compensation offered by the landlord falls in the second highest range for situations where there has been considerable service failure or maladministration. This includes factors that are relevant to this complaint such as chasing responses, repair delays and complaint delays. Accordingly, the compensation provided by the landlord was in accordance with our guidance.
In considering the circumstances of the case and the remit of this Service, the landlord offered appropriate redress.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of water ingress into the property resulting in damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

There were delays progressing the repairs which caused distress and inconvenience to the leaseholder. The landlord recognised its failings and offered appropriate compensation, in line with our remedies guidance and its own compensation policy.
The Ombudsman’s investigation was hampered by the lack of records provided by the landlord. The landlord failed to evidence its own actions and decision making. It failed to evidence all its communications with the leaseholder.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay £150 to the leaseholder in recognition of the record keeping failure and associated impact.
The landlord is required to provide evidence of compliance with the above order to this Service within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

It is recommended for the landlord to pay the leaseholder the £600 compensation it offered him if it has not done so already.
It is recommended that the landlord reviews events after its final response and addresses the leaseholder’s concern about the timeliness of the ceiling repair. It should also answer his query regarding its proactive roof maintenance comments and confirm how its stock condition survey process works and how it decides when to conduct roof improvements/repairs.
It is recommended that the landlord demonstrates more detailed learning from a complaint within its future complaint responses. This is line in with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle – learn from outcomes.
The landlord should contact this Service within 4 weeks, setting out its intentions regarding the above recommendations.