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

Hyde Housing Association Limited (202317915)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317915

Hyde Housing Association Limited

28 February 2025


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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of cracked walls in the property.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3 bedroom house. The resident has told this service that she has post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for her.
  2. In or around March 2023 the resident reported cracks to the walls in her bathroom and hallway.
  3. On 30 March 2023 the landlord visited the property and completed a repair to the cracks.
  4. On 30 May 2023 the landlord revisited the property to complete further repairs to the cracks in the bathroom and hallway.
  5. In or around July 2023 the resident raised a complaint at stage 1 of the landlord’s complaints procedure. She said the cracks had not been filled in correctly and the operatives painted over the cracks with a different colour paint to that already on her walls.
  6. On 14 July 2023 the landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its complaints procedure. In summary, it:
    1. Apologised for the delays and said it should have taken action sooner.
    2. Arranged for its operatives to revisit and complete the repairs on 23 August 2023.
    3. Offered £100 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience and her time and trouble in pursuing the matter.
    4. Offered her decorating vouchers so she could purchase paint of her preferred colour.
  7. On 31 July 2023 the resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure. She said the £100 offered was too low and she instead asked for £300 of compensation. She also asked when the decorating vouchers were going to be sent.
  8. On 10 August 2023 the landlord responded to the resident at stage 2 of its complaint procedure. The landlord apologised for the resident’s continued dissatisfaction but explained that its decision from stage 1 of its complaints procedure was unchanged.
  9. The resident requested the appointment scheduled for 23 August 2023 was rearranged.
  10. On 13 September 2023 the landlord completed the repairs to the cracked walls.

Events after the complaints process

  1. On 12 January 2024 the resident was quoted £750 by a private painter and decorator to complete decoration works to the affected areas.
  2. The resident remains dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered by the landlord. She is seeking an increase in compensation to resolve her complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has told us that the situation impacted her PTSD as a result of continuously chasing the landlord. This Service acknowledges the resident’s comments about her health. However, it is beyond the Ombudsman’s remit to consider whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and the resident’s health. This Service can consider any distress and inconvenience caused by any errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health. The landlord has told us that it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident or the household. In addition, there is no evidence the resident told the landlord about this as part of her formal complaint. Therefore, we recommend the landlord contacts the resident and update the medical information it holds for her (if she consents to this).
  2. This investigation will consider the events which gave rise to the resident’s formal complaint in July 2023 up until the landlord’s final response in August 2023. Although the resident has provided us with a copy of a quote from a private painter and decorator, this was dated after the landlord’s final complaint response. Therefore, whilst the quote provides helpful context, it cannot be considered as part of this investigation as there is no evidence it was brought to the landlord’s attention through its formal complaints procedure. Landlords need to be given an opportunity to formally respond to matters and new information through their own internal complaints procedure before we can investigate. This is explained in paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, available on our website, which says we cannot investigate matters which are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure. The resident may be able to raise a new complaint to the landlord about the painting cost based on the quote if she is unhappy with the landlord’s response to this.

The landlord’s handling of the cracked walls

  1. The landlord has a repairs policy. It says that non-urgent repairs will be completed within 20 working days of it being reported. The policy also says that residents are responsible for internal decoration following repairs by the landlord.
  2. When the resident first reported the cracked walls on 1 March 2023, the landlord’s initial response was appropriate. It logged a repair and completed this on 30 March 2023. This was an appropriate course of action to take and in accordance with what it says it will do in its repairs policy.
  3. Following the first repair, the landlord appears to have revisited on 30 May 2023. It is unclear, based on the evidence provided to this service, exactly what prompted that revisit. The landlord’s repair logs states that the visit was to make good the cracks to the bathroom and hallway. Despite the lack of evidence, it seems likely this visit was prompted by the resident, who was dissatisfied with the quality of work completed at the first visit. It was appropriate for the landlord to revisit in view of any continued concerns about the quality of the repairs.
  4. When the resident complained about the cracks at stage 1 of the landlord’s complaints procedure, she raised concerns about the quality of work completed. This included the landlord painting over the cracks with a different colour to what was already on her walls. In the stage 1 complaint response, the landlord recognised it should have taken action sooner and apologised for the delays in fully addressing the cracks. It offered her £100 compensation, as summarised above. The landlord also recognised her concerns about the paint colour and offered her decorating vouchers so she could buy her preferred colour. Although it was not under any obligation to do so, as its repairs policy states that residents are responsible for internal decoration, it was reasonable that the landlord offered decorating vouchers alongside the compensation in view of the resident’s concerns about the paint used.
  5. When the resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure, she said the compensation offered was too low, as explained above. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was unchanged and it said the compensation it had already offered was fair and based on the information it had. The compensation offered was in line with its compensation procedure, which says it may offer up to £350 for delays in dealing with an issue, distress, time, and trouble.
  6. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, it is the Ombudsman’s role to assess whether the landlord  did enough to put things right for the resident. As explained above, the landlord recognised it had unreasonably delayed the repair and offered £100 in compensation. It also provided additional decorating vouchers. Whist the Ombudsman appreciates the resident’s experiences would have been frustrating, the landlord’s offer was in line with our own remedies guidance (published on our website) which sets out our approach to compensation. The remedies guidance states that in cases where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident, £100-£600 may be awarded.
  7. Therefore, the landlord does not need to do anything further in this regard, as its offer was in line with what the Ombudsman would have awarded if the landlord had not already made an offer. The amount offered was appropriate redress for the landlord’s errors in this case.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the resident’s complaint about the cracked walls.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended the landlord contacts the resident to update the medical information it holds for her (if she consents to this) and how this may affect its service delivery.