Hyde Housing Association Limited (202317233)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317233

Hyde Housing Association Limited

11 July 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

This complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defects in their newly built property.
2. The delay installing an electric vehicle (“EV”) charger.
3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The property is a 3-bedroom house. The residents are shared owners. The residents moved into the property in November 2022.
The residents made a formal complaint on 17 February 2023. They described problems with a blocked toilet, en–suite drainage, loose brickwork, issues with the patio door, and a leak. They also expressed dissatisfaction regarding the delay with the installation of an EV charger and the delay repairing several other defects. Additionally, they described mould within the bedroom and said they had not yet reported this to the repairs team.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 1 March 2023. It said:
1. Contractors rectified the issue with the en–suite drainage a week after the resident’s reported it. As a gesture of goodwill, the contractors agreed to move the resident’s media plate.
2. A job was booked for the brickwork on 27 February 2023, but this was missed. It apologised and said contractors would resolve this by 3 March 2023.
3. Contractors would remedy the problem with the patio door closing and locking mechanism by 4 March 2023.
4. Contractors had since resolved the blocked toilet and it would write to all resident’s onsite to remind them not to flush wet wipes.
5. The delay with the EV charger was because the previous chargers had been discontinued and it was waiting for the developer’s sub-contractors to procure new chargers. This took longer than expected. Chargers had now been ordered and would be delivered to the site within 6 weeks.
6. It considered the leak in the bedroom to be urgent but not an emergency as it was contained. Contractors had ordered the necessary materials and set a provisional repair deadline of 9 April 2023. The ceiling and walls would also be made good.
7. It offered £175 compensation comprised of:
  1. £50 for the complaint handling failures.
  2. £25 for the resident’s time and trouble.
  3. £50 for the delays completing the defect work.
  4. £50 for the distress and inconvenience.
The residents rejected the landlord’s offer of compensation on 5 March 2023 and asked it to reconsider the amount.
The landlord reviewed the compensation offered at stage 1 and increased this to £525 on 20 March 2023. The residents accepted this on 4 April 2023.
On 10 July 2023, the residents requested further compensation to reflect the additional delays installing the EV charger and further issues experienced with the complaint commitments. The landlord increased the compensation from £525 to £825 on 14 July 2023.
The residents escalated their complaint to stage 2 on 19 July 2023.
On 10 August 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said it should have held itself accountable to ensure the contractors resolved the repairs and issues much quicker. It recognised there were delays in adhering to the commitments made within its stage 1 response. It confirmed contractors had resolved all matters raised in the initial complaint, barring replacement mastic on the bathroom sink. Contractors were due to complete this on 11 August 2023. It awarded an additional £50 compensation.

Events after the end of the landlord’s internal complaint procedure

The resident chased for the compensation payment in September 2023 and October 2023. The landlord apologised and offered an additional £50 compensation to reflect the delay in processing the payment.

Assessment and findings

Where a landlord admits failings, 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 the circumstances. The Ombudsman also considers whether the landlord acted in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.

Scope of investigation

This Service can only investigate matters which have completed the landlord’s complaints procedure. We recognise during the complaints process, other repairs and concerns were raised by the residents. However, this report is limited to the complaint the residents made on 17 February 2023 and the landlord’s response to it.
The landlord recorded a second complaint for the residents to address their concerns about a back gate post, the application of bark, tarmac stains on a wall, driveway cracks, and a loose kitchen tap. While a stage 1 complaint response was issued, neither party has submitted a stage 2 final complaint response. Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member landlord’s complaint procedure. Based on the information available, the Ombudsman is not satisfied that the matters raised in the second complaint have completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.
The residents told this Service that as of June 2024, the following issues remain outstanding:
1. A further instance of mould in bedrooms (reported 12 January 2024).
2. Driveway cracking.
3. Cracking to a kitchen wall.
4. Increase in service charges.
5. A streetlight outside the property causing light pollution.
The issues listed in paragraph 14 did not from part of the formal complaint to the landlord in February 2023. Therefore, these are not matters we can investigate at this stage. The landlord needs to have an opportunity to investigate and respond under its internal complaint procedure. The residents can contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint.
The residents are dissatisfied with service charges levied by the landlord. Under Paragraph 42(d) of the Scheme, we may not consider complaints that concern the level of service charge or rent or the increase of service charge or rent. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). It is open for the residents to seek free and independent legal advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service in relation to how to proceed with a case.
The residents explained the situation affected their mental health. They also said they took time off work for repair appointments, resulting in a loss of annual leave. The Ombudsman empathises with the residents. However, as this Service is an informal alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health or time off work. Nor can we calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider these aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are better suited for consideration by a court or a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman has considered the distress and inconvenience experienced by the residents.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defects in their newly built property

The existence of defects alone does not constitute a failure in the landlord’s service. During the defect liability period, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to function as an intermediary; coordinating between the developer/builder and the residents to ensure repairs are managed and completed to a satisfactory standard within a reasonable timeframe. This includes passing reports of defects to the developer/builder and providing regular updates to the residents.
The landlord has a defined procedure for resolving defects where in the first instance a resident should report a defect to the landlord’s product quality team. It is noted that the residents referred to various defects at different times in their correspondence with the landlord and often copied in several members of staff. The Ombudsman is minded this made it less straightforward to log and collate all the defects which should ordinarily be logged with the landlord’s product quality team.
It is reasonable to expect a resident to work with their landlord to ensure that it can provide effective and timely services by reporting matters through the appropriate channels. However, landlords also have a responsibility to manage the contact of residents. The Ombudsman finds the landlord could have done more here to reinforce the defect reporting process to the residents and to manage expectations surrounding its obligations, timescales, and limitations.
As part of this investigation, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide its records relating to defects, including records of correspondence between the landlord and the developer/relevant contractors. While the landlord has provided a significant amount of email correspondence between it and the residents, it has not provided a comprehensive account of how it communicated with the developer or its contractors for each defect.
From the information provided, it is surmised the landlord passed the resident’s reports of defects to the developer as repairs were addressed and progressed. The landlord provided the information below to this Service:
1. En–suite drainage – reported 21 November 2022, resolved 1 December 2022.
2. Loose brickwork – reported 28 February 2023, resolved 24 March 2023.
3. Patio door – reported 24 February 2023, resolved 21 April 2024.
4. Blocked toilet – initially reported 24 February 2023, resolved 1 March 2023.
5. EV charger – installed on 7 July 2023.
6. Leak around extractor fan in bathroom – reported 9 February 2023, resolved 23 March 2023.
7. Mould around the bedroom window – reported 24 February 2023, resolved 13 March 2023.
There are slight discrepancies with the dates above based on the resident’s recollection of events. It is vital landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of events. If we investigate 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 conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. As such, the Ombudsman finds that redress is warranted for the impact the landlord’s record-keeping has had on the fair and thorough investigation into the resident’s complaint, and the subsequent time and trouble caused to the residents.
The Ombudsman recognises the residents confirmed to the landlord via email on 13 July 2023 that all repairs raised in their initial complaint had since been completed.
From the evidence available, the residents spent an unreasonable amount of time chasing for updates, attempting to drive the repairs forward, and following up with the landlord when operatives did not attend appointments. The burden of following up outstanding repairs should not fall upon the residents. The Ombudsman determines that the communication failings throughout exacerbated the situation, delayed the resolution of the substantive issues, and worsened the impact on the residents.
The landlord recognised and apologised for its shortcomings in handling the reports of defects. It offered compensation of £775 comprised of £200 for the poor communication/resident’s time and trouble, £250 for the delays completing the defect work, and £325 for the distress and inconvenience experienced. Complaint handling has been considered separately below.
After carefully considering the information available and the detriment described by the residents, the Ombudsman finds the compensation awarded by the landlord does not go far enough to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the residents by repeated failings. As such, the Ombudsman has ordered additional compensation.
Overall, the landlord did not treat the resident fairly in the way it handled the reports of defects in the property. At times, it failed to communicate effectively. Poor record keeping meant the Ombudsman was unable to fully assess the landlord’s oversight of the repairs with the developer’s contractors. Furthermore, there were reports of delays and problems resolving newly reported defects which led to a second complaint, indicating the landlord did not learn sufficient lessons from this case.

The delay installing an electric vehicle charger

As a third–party was scheduling and undertaking the installation of the EV charger, the Ombudsman accepts that matters were largely out of the landlord’s hands. In such circumstances, the Ombudsman would expect to see that that landlord had done all it could to manage the situation and to proactively pursue the outstanding works.
Records show the landlord frequently contacted the developer to chase for updates. It then promptly updated the resident and apologised for any delays. It provided a reasonable explanation to the resident on several occasions about the delay. It also recognised there were additional delays with the installation post stage 1, which it apologised for and offered compensation, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (which is available on our website). It is not clear from the evidence available what sum of the compensation was specifically for the charger delay and what was for the delays resolving the defects. A learning recommendation has been made in this regard.
While the Ombudsman understands the delay installing the EV charger was extremely frustrating for the residents as they had a hybrid vehicle, this was an unavoidable and unforeseeable delay that the landlord was not directly responsible for.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) is applicable to all member landlords. It specifies a stage 1 complaint should be finalised in 10 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with no more than a further extension of 10 days. A stage 2 complaint should be finalised within 20 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint escalation, with a further extension of 10 days if required. A landlord should not exceed these timescales without good reason.
Within this case, the landlord reassessed the compensation on 2 occasions in between stage 1 and stage 2, effectively fragmenting the complaints process. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that it will not escalate a complaint to stage 2 where it upheld the complaint, but the customer had requested an increase in the compensation offered.
The landlord first reconsidered the compensation following an email from the residents which further described the detriment caused to them. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord ought to have investigated and considered the impact its failings had on the resident within its initial stage 1 complaint response. If it needed more information from the residents to understand the impact on them, it ought to have made reasonable enquiries during its stage 1 investigation. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman notes the resident specifically asked for the compensation to be reviewed and the landlord involved the resident in its complaint decision making. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
The second compensation review pertained to the additional delay in installing the EV charger, communication problems, and further issues with contractors attending appointments. It is important for landlords to recognise where new failings may have occurred after a stage 1 response or when complaint commitments were delayed and offer redress accordingly. However, landlords should prioritise achieving resolution through the complaints procedure wherever possible and have a fair, timely and consistent approach to putting things right and learning lessons from outcomes. The focus should be on putting things right for the resident through the complaints process.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, considering the resident’s ongoing dissatisfaction, it would have been more appropriate for the landlord to consider the complaint at stage 2 and issue its final complaint response. Its failure to progress the complaint through its formal process at the earliest opportunity meant it was effectively open from 18 February 2023 to 10 August 2023 – outside of the timescales expected for complaint resolution under the Code. However, the Ombudsman recognises the landlord’s compensation review did not hold up the complaints process unreasonably in this case as it completed the reviews within a relatively brief period.
By the end of the complaints process, the landlord had offered the resident £100 for the complaint handling failures identified. It also awarded an additional £50 post–complaint for its delay in processing the redress payment. This sum is in line with our remedies guidance for complaints where there was a failure that adversely affected a resident with no permanent impact. As such, the Ombudsman finds the landlord offered reasonable redress to the residents for the shortcomings in its complaints handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defects in their newly built property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the delay in installing an EV charger.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the Ombudsman orders to the landlord to pay the resident an additional £200 on top of the sum offered within its final complaint response. This is comprised of:
1. £100 for the time and trouble caused to the resident by the record keeping failures identified.
2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience experienced by the residents.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends the landlord pays the residents the compensation it previously offered through its complaints process (if it has not yet done so).
The Ombudsman recommends the landlord provides greater clarity when making offers of compensation in future complaint responses where there is more than one substantive issue.