Hyde Housing Association Limited (202305990)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305990

Hyde Housing Association Limited

23 September 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak into her bathroom and damage to the ceiling.
2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

The property is a 3-bedroom house. The resident has an assured tenancy, which began on 9 April 2001.
The landlord has advised this Service that it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident’s household.

Summary of events

The landlord raised an emergency order on 17 January 2022 to trace and remedy a leak coming from the water tank in the loft area of the property. She reported that water was leaking through the bathroom ceiling. The job notes stated that an operative attended on 18 January 2022 and was unable to find any leaks after inspecting the tank, the pipe connections to the tank and the stopcock. The operative confirmed there was a damp patch on the bathroom ceiling. The operative’s notes stated that a section of the ceiling would need to be cut out to identify the source of the leak.
The landlord raised a further order on 19 January 2022 to cut out a section of the ceiling to trace the leak affecting the bathroom ceiling. An operative attended on 25 January 2022 and advised that a roofer would need to attend to reconnect the outlet which was causing a leak in the loft. The operative stated that he had checked the water tank and pipes and could not find any leaks.
The landlord’s records show that it then booked an appointment to attend on 22 February 2022 but rescheduled the appointment to 4 March 2022 (it is unclear from the evidence seen why the appointment was rescheduled).
The landlord’s repair records state that an operative attended on 4 March 2022 and a further appointment had to be booked for 22 March 2022 because a roofer was required. The repair records show that the appointment was then changed to 19 April 2022 and then to 6 May 2022. The job notes stated that an operative attended on 6 May 2022 and advised the resident that she would need to clear some of her belongings in the loft area as it was too dangerous for an operative to work in the loft. The notes also stated that the job required 2 operatives to attend. The landlord therefore rebooked the job for the contractor to attend on 11 May 2022.
The resident contacted the landlord on 10 May 2022 and advised that she was unaware of the appointment that had been booked for 11 May 2022 and was unavailable. She therefore requested the landlord to rebook the appointment.
The landlord’s repair records show that the resident phoned the landlord on 25 May 2022 to check whether a contractor was going to attend as she had been expecting them to attend that day. The landlord advised the resident that it did not have an appointment booked for 25 May 2022 and therefore it booked an appointment for 11 June 2022.
The contractor attended on 11 June 2022 and the landlord’s records show that the contractor completed works to the roof. The notes stated that it repaired broken tiles, sealed the clay vent tile and then reattached the vent pipe in the loft. The contractor said that the vent pipe had been the main reason for the leak. The notes stated that a new order was needed to repair the hole in the bathroom ceiling, which was about 70mm in diameter.
The landlord raised an order on 15 July 2022 to repair the hole in the bathroom ceiling. The landlord’s records show that it had initially booked an appointment for 19 August 2022 but had then changed this to 27 September 2022. The resident contacted the landlord on 27 September 2022 to explain that she was unavailable on that day due to work commitments and therefore the appointment was changed to 7 October 2022.
On 7 October 2022, the resident submitted an online complaint form in which she stated the following:
1. There had been a leak affecting her bathroom ceiling for about one and a half years and the leak was still present.
2. She advised the landlord that she had a large wet patch on her bathroom ceiling and a hole in the ceiling.
3. In June 2022, an operative had attended and reported that he had repaired the leak in the loft. However, the resident stated that the operative had just covered over the damage.
4. The resident said she had made a further appointment in August 2022 but said the contractor had cancelled the appointment and rebooked it for a month later.
5. The resident said she had not been available to provide access on the appointed date and therefore the appointment had been rescheduled to 7 October 2022 in the morning. However, the resident stated that no one had arrived by 1.30pm, at which time she had to leave to go to work.
The landlord’s records confirm that the resident had phoned on 7 October 2022 to explain that it had been necessary for her to leave the property so she could get to work.
On 10 October 2022, the landlord booked an inspection to take place on 13 October 2022 in the afternoon to trace and remedy the leak affecting the bathroom.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 13 October 2022 regarding her stage 1 complaint. The landlord’s notes stated that the resident had agreed to close her complaint as the appointment had been made for the contractor to attend on 13 October 2022.
The contractor’s records show that it attended the property on 13 October 2022 but was unable to obtain access. The resident phoned the landlord on 13 October 2022 to report that she had missed the contractor because the operative had arrived before the afternoon appointment slot and the resident had gone to the shop in the morning.
The landlord’s repair records show that on 14 October 2022, it had booked a new appointment for an inspection to take place on 24 October 2022 to trace and remedy the leak affecting the bathroom ceiling. The contractor attended on 24 October 2022 and noted that the leak was from a split in the extractor fan ducting. Further appointments were therefore booked for a contractor to attend on 28 October 2022 and 4 November 2022 to rectify or renew the extractor fan ducting in the loft.
An operative attended the property on 28 October 2022 and noted there were 3 extractor fan pipes that had been disconnected in the loft. The operative stated that 2 of the pipes were easily accessible but the third pipe was in the front part of the loft and this was the one that was leaking into the bathroom. The contractor attended on 4 November 2022 and reconnected the ducting hose to the extractor fan in the loft.
The resident phoned the landlord on 27 January 2023 to report that appointments had been cancelled various times and her roof was still leaking.
The landlord records show that it attended the property on 10 February 2023. The operative noted that it was a roofing job rather than plumbing work and required 2 operatives to attend due to access difficulties in the loft.
The landlord was due to attend the property on 21 February 2023 but wrote to the resident on the same day to apologise that it could not attend.
The landlord’s repairs log shows that it raised a routine order on 21 February 2023 to make good the hole in the bathroom ceiling.
The resident contacted the landlord on 6 March 2023 to ask for her complaint about the bathroom ceiling to be escalated to stage 2. The landlord therefore spoke to and wrote to the resident on 7 March 2023 to confirm that her complaint had been escalated to stage 2.
On 14 March 2023, the landlord booked an appointment to attend on 15 March 2023 to repair the leak from the extractor fan pipe. The landlord’s records confirm that it attended the appointment on 15 March 2023 and as a result ordered materials. On 20 March 2023, the landlord booked an appointment to carry out the repairs on 14 April 2023.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply to the resident on 23 March 2023 in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord accepted that it had not repaired the leak when it should have done and did not communicate adequately with the resident to reassure her of when the leak would be repaired.
2. The landlord apologised for the service the resident had received and offered the resident £400 compensation made up of:
  1. £100 for the resident’s patience through the complaints process.
  2. £100 for the delays in completing the repairs.
  3. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
3. The landlord stated that the compensation offered was in line with its Compensation Policy, which allowed the landlord to award compensation where its service had fallen below expected levels.
4. The landlord said its contractor had attended on 13 October 2022 and repaired the extractor fan pipe. However, the resident had subsequently contacted the landlord to explain that the pipe was still leaking.
5. The landlord’s contractor attended on 15 March 2023 regarding the leaking extractor fan pipe and, following the visit, the contractor advised the landlord that additional materials were required to complete the repair.
6. The contractor had therefore booked appointments on 14 April 2023 to repair the pipe and on 17 April 2023 to make good the ceiling.

Events following the landlord’s stage 2 reply

The landlord’s records state the contractor missed the appointment on 14 April 2023 as one of its operatives was absent from work. The landlord phoned the resident on 14 April 2023 to apologise for the cancellation of the appointment.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 9 May 2023 to reject its offer of £400. She stated that she would not accept compensation until the repair had been completed.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 15 May 2023 to acknowledge a new stage one complaint she had submitted. The landlord said it would arrange for the repairs to be carried out to the leaking extractor fan pipe and then arrange a mould wash. The landlord also spoke to the resident on the same day and confirmed that an appointment had been booked for 19 May 2023. The landlord’s records show that the landlord did not process this latest complaint through its complaints process as it had already responded to the matters in question at stage 2 on 23 March 2023.
The resident contacted this Service on 18 May 2023 and reported that she had a hole in her bathroom ceiling and mould on the ceiling. She said she was concerned about her children’s safety. She also advised that the compensation offered was in her view inadequate to make up for the stress she had experienced, which she said had affected her mental health.
The resident contacted this Service again on 22 May 2023 to report that the contractor had attended on 19 May 2023 to repair the leak but she stated that the repair was not completed correctly and therefore a further appointment was needed. She stated that she had still not been given an appointment to repair the hole in the ceiling and remove the mould. The landlord’s record’s for the visit on 19 May 2023 show that the operative had carried out a temporary repair as the parts he had did not fit. He had therefore re-ordered the correct parts.
The contractor attended on 31 May 2023 and changed the ducting pipe to achieve a better fit.
The resident contacted this Service on 9 June 2023 to advise that the contractor had repaired the leak on 31 May 2023 but she still had a hole in the ceiling and mould on the ceiling.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 1 August 2023 and requested the landlord to review the level of compensation she had been offered as the contractor was due to remove her bathroom ceiling on 3 and 4 August 2023. The landlord’s records show that the contractor replaced the ceiling plasterboard on 3 August 2023 and was due to return to paint the ceiling, however, the resident informed the landlord that she would carry out the painting herself.
The landlord advised this Service on 27 June 2024 that it had treated the conversation with the resident on 13 October 2022 as its stage one reply. The landlord’s notes stated that the resident was happy for the complaint to be closed. The landlord accepted when providing the information to this Service that it had not complied with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code because it had not sent a formal reply to the resident’s complaint. However, it stated that it had learnt from this and now ensured that every complaint received an acknowledgement and a formal reply. The landlord stated that this was evidenced in its self-assessment against the Code.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak into her bathroom and damage to the ceiling

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. This includes walls, ceilings, the roof and internal plasterwork.
The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Operational Procedure states that it prioritises responsive repairs within the following categories:
1. Emergency repairs – the contractor will attend within 4 hours and make safe within 24 hours.
2. Anytime repairs – the contractor will complete repairs within 20 working days. This category includes any responsive repair that is not an emergency repair.
3. Major repairs – these include complex works and will be undertaken as per the landlord’s stock investment procedures.
On 17 January 2022, the resident reported a leak coming from the loft area into the bathroom. An operative attended on 18 January 2022 and therefore the contractor responded within an appropriate timescale as the repair was treated as an emergency. The contractor’s notes show that the operative checked the water tank in the loft and all the connected pipework but was unable to identify the source of the leak.
The operative recommended cutting out a section of the bathroom ceiling to identify the source of the leak and therefore on 19 January 2022 the landlord raised an order to remove a section of the bathroom ceiling. The landlord had therefore acted promptly by raising a follow-on order to investigate the source of the leak.
The contractor attended on 25 January 2022 and checked the tank and pipework again. The contractor did not remove a section of the ceiling as requested on the repair order as it concluded that there were no plumbing leaks and that a roofer was required. The contractor attended on 4 March 2022 and again identified that a roofer was required. It was unreasonable that the landlord had failed to send a roofer on 4 March 2022 given that the contractor had already identified the need for a roofer on 25 January 2022. This caused the resident inconvenience and meant there was a delay in addressing the reported leak.
A contractor attended on 6 May 2022 and advised the resident that she would need to move some of her belongings in the loft to provide access for the repair. The contractor also identified that the job required 2 operatives to carry out the work. It was unreasonable that neither the landlord nor its contractor had previously identified the need for the resident to move her belongings. This again added to the delay in rectifying the reported leak.
The contractor completed works to the roof on 11 June 2022, including reattaching the vent ducting pipe, which it said had been the main reason for the leak. It had therefore taken almost 5 months for the landlord’s contractor to carry out the repairs. This was considerably longer than the landlord’s advertised timescale of 20 working days for non-urgent repairs and the time taken was therefore unreasonable.
Part of the delay was due to communication problems during May 2022, which meant that the landlord had to rearrange the appointment twice. For example, the contractor had arranged to attend on 11 May 2022 but the resident stated she had not been notified of the appointment. The Ombudsman has reviewed the landlord’s repairs records and has not seen any evidence that the landlord had notified the resident of the appointment details in advance. The communication issues therefore added to the resident’s frustration regarding the outstanding repair.
The notes of the contractor’s visit on 11 June 2022 stated that a follow-on order was needed to repair the hole in the bathroom ceiling. The landlord therefore raised an order on 15 July 2022 to repair the hole. The Ombudsman has not seen any explanation of why it took over a month for the landlord to raise the follow-on order to repair the ceiling. The delay was therefore unreasonable as it added a further delay and frustration for the resident.
The landlord initially offered an appointment to do the work on 19 August 2022 and then changed this to 27 September 2022. This Service has not seen any evidence explaining the reason the appointment was changed and why it had been booked so far ahead. The appointment date was more than 3 months after the roofers had carried out the repairs on 11 June 2022 and therefore the time taken was unreasonable. The landlord had once again exceeded its 20-working day timescale for non-urgent repairs and had not given the resident a reason for this.
The resident changed the appointment date from 27 September 2022 to 7 October 2022 due to work commitments. The landlord’s records show that the appointment was booked for the morning of 7 October 2022, however, the resident stated in her stage one complaint that the contractor had not arrived in the morning and she had to leave for work at 1.30pm. It was therefore unreasonable that the contractor had not arrived at the appointed time on 7 October 2022.
A further appointment was booked for the contractor to attend on 13 October 2022. However, the appointment was missed because the contractor had arrived in the morning and the resident stated that the appointment had been booked for the afternoon. The landlord’s records show that the contractor had attended in the morning and the landlord had not disputed the resident’s statement that the appointment had been scheduled for the afternoon. It was therefore again unreasonable that the contractor had not arrived at the correct time.
The contractor attended on 24 October 2022 and identified that the leak was coming from one of the extractor fan ducting hoses that was disconnected. He mentioned that the hose was difficult to access. The contractor therefore re-attended on 4 November 2022 and reconnected the ducting hose to the extractor fan. However, the resident reported on 27 January 2023 that the leak was still present. Therefore, although the landlord’s contractor had inspected the loft area on various occasions and had carried out works to address the leak on 11 June 2022 and 4 November 2022, the evidence shows that the leak had continued. The Ombudsman’s view is that it was unreasonable that the contractor had failed to address the leak permanently despite attending on various occasions.
The contractor attended the property on 10 February 2023 and again noted that it was a roofing job and needed 2 operatives due to access difficulties. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not used the information from previous visits, particularly the landlord’s inspection in October 2022, to establish that it was a roofing job and needed 2 operatives. It was also unreasonable given the length of time the leak had been outstanding that the landlord cancelled an appointment that it had booked for 21 February 2023. The resident had advised the landlord on 27 January 2023 that she was frustrated because the contractor had missed various appointments and the leak was still present. She therefore requested the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 6 March 2023.
The contractor attended the property on 15 March 2023 and identified the need for additional materials, which it ordered. It then booked an appointment for 14 April 2023.
The landlord accepted in its stage 2 reply dated 23 March 2023 that it had not repaired the leak when it should have done and did not communicate with the resident adequately to reassure her of when the repair would be done. The landlord apologised for the service she had received and offered her compensation of £400.
The Ombudsman understands that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as leaks as it can be difficult to identify the cause at the outset. It is also the case that different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. However, in this case, the landlord had several opportunities to address the leak and failed to do so. For example, the contractor attended on 18 January, 25 January, 4 March, 6 May, 11 June, 24 October, 28 October, 4 November 2022, 10 February 2023 and 15 March 2023. Therefore, the evidence shows that the number of visits was excessive.
As well as carrying out several visits, the evidence shows that there were various missed appointments and a lack of communication with the resident. This all added to the inconvenience and stress experienced by the resident following her report of the leak in January 2022. Due to the length of time the leak was outstanding, the evidence shows that it created a hole in the bathroom ceiling and eventually led to mould forming on the ceiling.
The Ombudsman has considered the level of redress offered by the landlord as part of its stage 2 reply but does not consider it to be adequate redress to put things right because:
1. At the time of the landlord’s stage 2 reply, the leak had been present for over a year and the resident had reported the problem on several occasions.
2. The landlord had failed to use information from previous visits to send the correct tradespersons to some of the appointments, despite information stating that the job required a roofer. The landlord had also not ensured that 2 operatives attended the appointments, even though this had been identified in May 2022.
3. The lack of learning from the visits meant that the resident was unnecessarily inconvenienced because the contractor sometimes attended and did not carry out any repairs.
4. There were examples of missed appointments, some of which were because the contractor attended at incorrect times.
5. The evidence shows that the landlord was not proactive in arranging for the leak or the damaged ceiling to be addressed and relied on the resident to chase the issues. The Ombudsman has also not seen any evidence that the landlord post-inspected or checked the work carried out by the contractor to ensure it had addressed the leak.
The evidence shows that the resident experienced further inconvenience during April and May 2023. In April, the landlord cancelled an appointment due to staff absence and in May 2023, the contractor had to carry out an interim repair first, followed by the permanent repair. The landlord has advised this Service that the repairs to address the leak were completed on 31 May 2023 and the ceiling was renewed on 3 August 2023.
Based on this assessment, including the delays in carrying out the remedial work after the landlord’s stage 2 reply, the Ombudsman has found there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the reported leak and the damaged ceiling. The repairs were outstanding for a prolonged period, which led to a hole and mould appearing on the ceiling. It also eventually led to the resident’s bathroom ceiling having to be completely renewed, which caused further inconvenience. There were also missed appointments, a lack of communication with the resident and a lack of learning by the landlord.
Although, according to the evidence seen, the resident was able to use the bathroom during the period of the complaint, the resident experienced distress and inconvenience due to the failings, as acknowledged by the landlord in its stage 2 reply.
The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £700, which includes the £400 already offered by the landlord at stage 2 of the complaints process. The amount ordered is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for findings of maladministration where the landlord has acknowledged failings and/or made some attempt to put things right but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

The landlord’s complaints procedure states that there are 2 stages to its complaints process. Stage one complaints are responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that at the end of stage one, landlords must write to the resident confirming various information, such as the complaint definition, the decision on the complaint and details of how to escalate the matter to stage 2.
The resident submitted a stage one complaint on 7 October 2022. The landlord has confirmed to this Service that it spoke to the resident on 13 October 2022 and she agreed that it could close the complaint as the landlord had booked an appointment for a contractor to attend on that day. The landlord has accepted that its failure to provide the resident with a written stage one reply was contrary to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code in operation at the time, which stated that the landlord must send a written reply.
The landlord’s failure to send a formal stage one reply meant it missed an opportunity to properly investigate the complaint, explain its findings to the resident and identify any learning. The landlord therefore acted inappropriately by not sending a written stage one reply to the resident, even though the resident had agreed that the complaint could be closed.
The resident contacted the landlord on 6 March 2023 and asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2. The landlord spoke to and wrote to the resident the next day to confirm it had escalated the complaint. The landlord had therefore appropriately acknowledged the stage 2 complaint.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 23 March 2023, which was 13 working days after receiving the resident’s request to escalate the complaint. The landlord had therefore responded within its published timescale for stage 2 complaints.
The landlord advised this Service that it had learnt from its failure to send a stage one reply and now ensured that every complaint received a formal reply. This demonstrates learning by the landlord, which is one of the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles and is therefore welcome. However, this Service has found there was a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling because the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord properly investigated the stage one complaint. An investigation at stage one would have given the landlord the opportunity to review the previous job orders and helped it to avoid repeating some of the errors. For example, the landlord failed to send a roofer on 10 February 2023, even though the contractor had noted on 4 March 2022 that the job required a roofer.
The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £100 in relation to its complaints handling. This sum is within the range of redress recommended in the Remedies Guidance for service failures.

Special investigation

This Service has not made any orders for the landlord to carry out wider learning from this case or to review its processes. This is because the landlord is currently the subject of an Ombudsman special investigation. Special investigations are conducted under paragraph 49 of the Scheme to determine whether there is evidence of systemic or wider failings by the landlord. The failings identified in this complaint will be considered as part of the special investigation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak into her bathroom and damage to the ceiling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Reasons

The repairs were outstanding for a prolonged period, there were missed appointments, a lack of communication with the resident and a lack of learning by the landlord. The resident experienced distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s failings.
The landlord did not send a written reply to the resident in response to her stage one complaint and this Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord properly investigated the complaint at stage one.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £700 for its handling of the reported leak and damage to the bathroom ceiling (this sum includes the £400 already offered by the landlord).
3. Pay the resident £100 for its handling of the associated complaints.