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

Hyde Housing Association Limited (202315670)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315670

Hyde Housing Association Limited

23 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

  1. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the balcony doors at her property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has a fixed-term tenancy with the landlord, a housing association. Since February 2020, she has been living with her toddler in the property, a flat on the 5th floor of the building.
  2. At the time of moving in, the resident noted the balcony door seemed defective and required a lot of force to open and close. She said she reported this to the landlord and a contractor attended in March 2020, but did not complete repairs. The landlord does not hold records of this repair.
  3. Over time, the balcony door became increasingly hard to operate. The resident said she called the landlord in August 2021 and a contractor attended to remove part of the frame, advising her to keep it closed at all times.
  4. Meanwhile, the resident became increasingly concerned about the safety of her child going near the door, which was noted in the landlord’s records at the time.
  5. The resident later told this Service that at the time throughout the winter months the wind would come in through the gaps. She also mentioned that as she could not access the balcony for laundry hanging and ventilation, the damp accumulated in the bathroom. It is unclear if the resident made the landlord aware of this at the time and the landlord’s records of the resident’s communication around that time do not refer to these concerns.
  6. On 30 August 2022, the resident called the landlord to report the balcony door was “wide open” and a panel was hanging off its hinges which she believed could fall onto her 3-year-old child or onto people down on the street. A contractor from the landlord attended on the same day and did temporary repairs on the door that were marked on its repair notes as “making safe”.
  7. The landlord’s records and the resident’s account differ on the events following this. The resident said a contractor attended on 15 September 2022 to measure the door. She said the landlord’s staff with whom she was in contact told her that the contractor had sent a quotation afterwards, but the landlord changed its contractors shortly after and the quotation was never processed. The landlord’s own internal records show that on 11 October 2022, it assigned a contractor to prepare a quotation for a replacement door.
  8. Records showed that the resident kept chasing the landlord on this issue through calls and emails.
  9. On 24 October 2022, a contractor attended the property and advised the resident the door must be replaced and no further work could be done on the existing door. The resident told them she was already waiting for a replacement. She also called the landlord on the same day and expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of response despite her chasing it multiple times. The resident stated this was the first occasion when she logged a service complaint, even though the landlord declined to register it as such. The landlord’s notes of this call indicated that “the resident said if this did not get resolved she would log a formal complaint”.
  10. Throughout the period from 1 November 2022 to July 2023, landlord records show that the resident kept chasing it on this same issue, repeatedly explaining that the balcony door needed to be replaced  and the landlord had not processed this despite already having a quotation from the contractor. There is no evidence the landlord carried out any inspection, risk assessment, or further repairs during this time.
  11. The landlord noted internally around July or August 2023 that while one contractor had already provided a quotation, administratively the door replacement should sit with another department (component renewal). It asked another contractor to provide a quotation.
  12. On 20 September 2023, the landlord acknowledged that the resident had raised a complaint. It provided a stage 1 complaint response on 28 September 2023, which said:
    1. It apologised for the delays in scheduling repairs to the resident’s balcony door which caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
    2. It acknowledged that the repair work had not taken place despite the resident raising this as early as October 2022 and the landlord having carried out several inspections.
    3. It offered £400 in compensation in recognition of failures in complaint handling, delays in service delivery and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
    4. It had arranged for a new balcony door to be manufactured and installed by the first week of November 2023.
    5. It provided details of a direct contact person in the property maintenance team.
    6. It acknowledged the resident had been in contact with it since 2022 but said that it could only look back on events happening as far back as 6 months before the initial complaint.
  13. The resident replied on the same day to say she wanted her complaint to be escalated as she felt the compensation did not adequately reflect the impact to her. She stated she had to make out of hours calls for this issue. She also said that her initial complaint of 24 October 2022 was not registered as such or investigated, and requested clarification on which contractor was actually providing the door replacement service.
  14. The landlord replied on 6 October 2023 to say it had conducted a compensation offer review and would increase this to £600 (the landlord’s offer read as £650 in the letter which was later clarified to be a typo), but since the balcony door replacement was scheduled to go ahead in November 2023, it considered there were no grounds for escalating the complaint. It said, if the replacement did not go ahead by that time, the resident could then ask for an escalation. It explained that the first contractor had attended to carry out responsive repairs but the work was subsequently assigned to another contractor with another department.
  15. The resident continued to contact the landlord on this matter. On 7 November 2023 the landlord provided a final response to say that as the resident had given no further new evidence, it would not change its decision nor make a higher offer.

Events after end of the internal complaints process

  1. The contractor attended on 13 November 2023 and carried out replacements to the door. The resident called the landlord the same day to say while she was happy with the replacement, her laminate flooring was damaged during the installation. She also said she was confused about the amount of compensation offered as the landlord’s letter said £650, but she only received £600.
  2. The landlord replied on the same day to ask the resident to send in photos of the damaged flooring and explain that the £650 was a typo; the correct compensation offer should have been £600. The resident provided the required photos and the landlord later arranged for replacement of the flooring on 4 December 2023.
  3. The resident referred the matter to our Service in December 2023 stating that she was unhappy with the amount of compensation, which she felt did not adequately reflect the impact on her as she had lived in the flat for 3 years without the use of her balcony. Further, she felt the balcony door had posed a safety concern in view of the fact she had a young child living with her, as well as causing damp and water ingress during rain.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. This investigation will consider events starting from February 2020 which is when the resident moved into the property and reported a possible defect in the balcony door.
  2. This investigation will also take into account the events that happened after the end of the internal complaints process, up to December 2023. This is because after providing its final response, the landlord carried out repairs or replacement works which were directly related to the subject matter in the complaint.

Relevant policies and guidance

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the property. This is confirmed in the tenancy agreement.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs procedure states it would prioritise responsive repairs for emergency repairs, including reports of insecure doors or windows. It said it would attend within 4 hours of the report to make the situation safe and follow-on works would then be completed as an anytime repair, which would be carried out within 20 working days.
  3. Our Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) states that landlords should store and maintain their data appropriately in line with data protection requirements to ensure continuity in handling repairs, which is particularly important where there is a handover of data such as the end of a maintenance contract.
  4. Our recent report on learning from severe maladministration (August 2024) highlights the importance of landlords dealing appropriately with reports of insecure windows affecting the safety and wellbeing of residents, carrying out risk assessments and repairs promptly and keeping the resident informed. Whilst this report has been published recently and was not available at the time of the events considered in this investigation, we would have expected the good practice approach that the report highlights to have been in place at the time. Although this case relates to a balcony door rather than a typical window, the Ombudsman considers the same principles apply to this case.
  5. The landlord’s compensation policy states that after an initial 72 hours following a resident’s report of loss of use of rooms, it would reduce the weekly basic rent charge as compensation: loss of the kitchen (40%), bathroom (40%), and any other rooms (20%). It states the loss of use will be calculated on a weekly basis only; part-week periods will be rounded up to the next full week when calculating the rent reduction payable. For delays in delivery of service with a medium impact, it would offer up to £250, and for a major impact it would offer £500. For distress and inconvenience caused to residents by failure in service it would offer up to £250 for an incident with medium impact, and up to £500 for an incident with major impact involving injury to health.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about balcony doors

  1. The resident’s account is that she had been reporting an issue with the balcony door being very hard to open and close since February 2020. The landlord does not hold records of this earlier correspondence and the Ombudsman cannot say with reasonable confidence at what point in time the door condition deteriorated so much that it became insecure and the resident could no longer access the balcony. The landlord has not disputed that the door issue had existed since the resident moved in. On a balance of probability, the Ombudsman accepts the resident’s account that she had difficulty using her balcony as soon as she moved in (February 2020) and had only limited use of her balcony due to a malfunctioning door.
  2. The landlord made a detailed record of a call on 30 August 2022 when the resident reported the door being “wide open” and hanging off its frame. The resident also expressly reported safety concerns for her toddler. The Ombudsman considers that by this point, if not before, the landlord should have carefully considered if it was no longer safe for the resident to access the balcony at all. The landlord should have recognised the urgency of the problem and prioritised this as a safety concern. While the landlord did initially classify this as an emergency repair and attended the property on 30 August 2022 for “make safe” repairs, it would appear from later records that any temporary safety fix did not stay in place for long and the door condition remained the same – the door panel still hung loose and constituted a safety concern.
  3. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to conduct a risk assessment (as the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have done for window security issues which are similar in nature). The resident had already reported safety concerns for her young child and evidence shows the landlord was aware of the situation. However, the landlord did not do this throughout the lifetime of this case.
  4. According to the landlord’s responsive repairs policy, once the insecure door had been made safe (which should have been done within 4 hours of the resident’s report), any follow-on works should then have been completed within 20 working days. The Ombudsman recognises that it would have taken time to manufacture a replacement door which may have meant this target could not realistically be met (in which case the landlord should have kept the resident informed on its timeframe and agreed on a date for installation). However, the replacement did not go ahead until 15 months later (November 2023) and there is no evidence the landlord kept the resident updated during this time, despite her contacting it for updates.
  5. Records showed that at least two quotations were done by different contractors. The first quotation was sent around September 2022 but the landlord did not carry out further action on this until around July 2023, which it said was due to a change in contractors, and then assigning the task to a different department (component renewal) instead of responsive repairs. This indicated a failing in knowledge and information management, and a lack of continuity in handling data from contractors. The delay was excessive. For at least 15 months, the landlord was aware that the resident was unable to access her balcony safely and was under constant worry that the hanging panel would fall out onto her toddler or onto the street below. She also could not use the balcony for drying clothing or ventilation which undoubtedly caused distress and inconvenience.
  6. During the installation in November 2023, the resident said her laminated flooring was damaged. While this was not the substantial issue of this complaint, it added to the resident’s general sense of frustration and inconvenience. The landlord has since then replaced the flooring which the Ombudsman considers was a positive step to take.
  7. It is unclear whether the resident expressly made the landlord aware at the time in her reports that the door hanging off its hinge was causing damp and water ingress during rain, however, the Ombudsman accepts this was likely the case and it caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
  8. The landlord has offered £600 in total in recognition of the delays, failings in service and distress caused to the resident. While this goes some way towards putting things right and is a reasonable offer in recognition of general distress and inconvenience, the Ombudsman considers that, since the resident lost the use of her balcony for a period of time, the landlord should have offered her some compensation to recognise the loss of use of some of the property, in line with the approach set out in its own compensation policy. Its failure to do so meant that its offer of compensation did not fully put matters right for the resident.
  9. Based on the findings above, there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns around the balcony door. There were delays in repairs, it showed poor knowledge and information management, and it did not carry out appropriate risk assessments.
  10. The resident’s weekly rent as of February 2020 (the start of the tenancy) was £117.62. The landlord’s compensation policy says it would reduce weekly rent by 40% for loss of a bathroom or a kitchen and 20% for any other room. Taking this approach, the Ombudsman considers that for the loss of a balcony, the landlord should pay compensation equivalent to approximately 10% of the resident’s weekly rent for the period of 30 August 2022 to 13 November 2023 (minus the period of 20 working days allowed for anytime repairs). This period should start from 30 August 2022 as this was the date when the resident reported the door had come off its hinges and she had fully lost access to the balcony. This equates to approximately £720. Accordingly an order for financial compensation has been made below.
  11. 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, which is being conducted under paragraph 49 of the Scheme and will consider whether there is evidence of systemic or wider failings by the landlord and make a set of recommendations in relation to the outcomes of this work. The findings of this special investigation are due to published shortly.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (July 2020 & April 2024) defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord, affecting an individual resident or a group of residents”. The landlord’s complaints adopts this definition and makes a distinction between a service request and a complaint. A service request is a report of an issue identifying a need for repairing or fixing, whereas a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction.
  2. The resident says she had reported the issue as early as February 2020 and it had persisted for more than 3 years before the replacement. The earliest record of the resident reporting this issue in the landlord’s documents is a call made on 30 August 2022 where the resident was clearly documented as stating the balcony door was hanging off its frame.
  3. The resident made a further call on 24 October 2022 in which she expressed her dissatisfaction about the continuous delays, despite the contractor having already provided a quotation for renewal. On the landlord’s own call records, the resident was described as “upset and would like some updates or she would log a formal complaint”. The resident has told this Service in clear and unambiguous terms that this was the first time when she asked to log a complaint, however, the landlord attempted to “de-escalate” and did not accept it as a complaint. On further queries, the landlord told our Service that it considered this call to be a service request, rather than a complaint.
  4. The Ombudsman considers that, in the context of the resident having already reported the issue as of 30 August 2022 and chased the landlord for repairs multiple times by October 2022, this call should have been treated as a complaint. It is clear on 24 October 2022 the resident made an expression of dissatisfaction about the landlord’s lack of action to her previous multiple service requests. The landlord’s failure to register this as a formal complaint was not in line with the Code.
  5. In its stage 1 complaint response of 28 September 2023,  the landlord stated it would only look at events dating back 6 months before the complaint was made. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (July 2020) states that where the problem is a recurring issue, the landlord should consider any older reports (even if they date back beyond 6 months) as part of the background to the complaint, if it helps to resolve the issue. Further, where a complaint has been made concerning health and safety issues, it may not be appropriate for the landlord to exclude events dating back more than 6 months. In this case, the insecure balcony door constituted a safety concern, and it would have been reasonable for the landlord to look back to events starting from at least 2022.
  6. Although the 2020 Code did not have statutory status, the Ombudsman’s view is that, giving the long-standing safety concern, the landlord’s approach to exclude all events happening more than 6 months before September 2023 was not reasonable. There was a clear record of the balcony door being reported as a safety issue as of August 2022, and the landlord should not have dismissed the earlier delays in its consideration of its own actions.
  7. The resident asked for escalation to stage 2 on the same day as she received the stage 1 complaint response (on 28 September 2023). The landlord replied on 6 October 2023 to say that while it would increase the financial compensation within its stage 1 response, it would not escalate her complaint at that time because repairs were still pending. It said it would like to complete the replacement work first and once completed, if the resident remained dissatisfied, she could ask for escalation to stage 2.
  8. The 2020 Complaint Handling Code states that landlords should not unnecessarily refuse to escalate and where it does so it must provide the resident with a clear and reasonable explanation. The Ombudsman considers that at the time, the landlord’s refusal to escalate was reasonable and in line with the Code as it provided a clear explanation that it might be in better position to respond further to the resident once repairs were complete in 4 to 6 more weeks. It is worth noting however that under the 2024 newly revised statutory Code, the resident would not need to provide any further reason and an expression of dissatisfaction would be sufficient for escalation, since the purpose of stage 2 in the complaints process is for the stage 1 response to be independently reviewed by another person.
  9. The landlord subsequently declined to provide any stage 2 response at all, stating that the resident had not provided new evidence to make it change its decision. Again, the purpose of a stage 2 is to allow an opportunity for the landlord to appoint an independent person to review what it had done so far (up to and including making the stage 1 response) and identify any outstanding issues, either with repairs or complaint handling. The landlord missed an opportunity to look at what it had done so far and to put things right.
  10. There was also an issue with communication over the amount of compensation due to the resident. The landlord made a typo stating it would offer £650 at the review although it was in fact £600. The landlord has apologised for this and the Ombudsman considers the apology to be reasonable, however, this undoubtedly added to the resident’s sense of frustration. The landlord should ensure accuracy in its communications in future.
  11. The landlord has so far offered £50 to the resident for failings in complaint handling at stage 1 (it did not specify what failings it identified). The Ombudsman considers this was insufficient to reflect the distress caused to the resident from the above failings, and cumulative impact on her and her ability to fully use her home.
  12. Overall, the Ombudsman finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling, due to its failure to accept the resident’s complaint of 24 October 2022, inappropriate exclusion of events dating further back than 6 months before its acknowledgement of the complaint in its stage 1 investigation, and inappropriate refusal to provide a stage 2 response.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the balcony door.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord is to make a further written apology to the resident in acknowledgement of the failings identified in this report and forward a copy to this Service.
  2. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord is to pay to the resident a sum of £920 (on top of the £600 previously offered) and provide evidence of payment to this Service, broken down as follows:
    1. £720 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the loss of use of the balcony.
    2. £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by poor complaint handling.