Hyde Housing Association Limited (202320919)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320919

Hyde Housing Association Limited

11 June 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 the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak into the resident’s property and the associated decant and remedial work.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a one-bedroom fifth-floor flat. The tenancy started on 25 September 2006.
In August 2022, the resident reported a leak into his flat from the property above. Records show the lights were isolated and made safe.
The resident continued to report the leak to the landlord throughout September 2022 and said he had no lighting for weeks. Records show the landlord offered to make his fuse box safe, but the resident refused. The landlord advised him to use table lamps in the meantime.
Records show the landlord attended the resident’s property on 30 September 2022. It said that while there was a leak, the resident did not need a decant at present. It took photos of the property.
In October 2022, the resident told the landlord that the leak was ongoing. He also reported that mould was starting to spread.
In early November 2022, the landlord noted that the leak was intermittent and isolated to the resident’s bathroom. It said it could not decant the resident as he was able to use alternative lighting, and it could appoint an electrician to partially reinstate the lighting where it was able to.
Following extensive engagement with third parties, the landlord gained access to the property above in mid-November 2022. Following this, the landlord decided to decant the resident. The resident left the property on 28 November 2022.
The landlord updated the resident on 20 December 2022. It explained it had identified a new problem with the roof. It estimated he would remain decanted until mid-January 2023.
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 10 January 2023. He said:
1. He reported a leak in August 2022 coming from the flat above. It started in the bathroom and cut the power supply to the shower and the lights in the entire property. Although an electrician had attended, the fuse kept tripping due to the ongoing leak.
2. The tenant above had mental health issues and did not give access for repairs.
3. When the landlord offered him a decant, the suggested hotel was unsuitable. He chose to make his own arrangements as the landlord initially said the repairs would take 2 weeks. The landlord then extended the duration of the works.
4. The landlord left him homeless over the festive period and the landlord refused to provide a hotel room that was big enough for him to spend Christmas day with his 4 children.
5. Prior to the decant, he was paying full rent for a property that was unfit to live in. He had no shower and was living with lamps, candles, and mould. He considered this a health hazard – especially when his children were staying. He wanted compensation and reimbursement of the rent paid during this period.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 3 March 2023. It said:
1. It should have completed the repairs much sooner and upheld this aspect of the complaint.
2. It found no failings in the decant process that would warrant the reimbursement of rent and did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.
3. It offered £300 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. £100 for the delay completing the repairs.
  4. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
4. It expected the repairs to be completed week commencing 13 March 2023 and outlined the works. A surveyor would confirm when he could return to the property.
5. It initially told the resident that the decant would be for 2 weeks. However, it identified more leaks. It also had challenges drying out the property.
6. The decant policy only allowed accommodation for tenants and household members and so it could not offer accommodation suitable for the resident’s children.
7. It gave the resident a choice of being temporarily moved to a hotel or staying with family/friends. The resident opted for the latter. It paid the resident a weekly disturbance allowance of £280.
On 7 March 2023, the resident refused the landlord’s offer of compensation. He said he had been paying rent on a property he felt was not suitable for habitation and it had taken over 3 months for the landlord to complete the repairs.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 7 July 2023. It said:
1. It had reconsidered the compensation awarded at stage 1 and increased this from £300 to £650. The updated compensation was comprised of:
  1. £50 for the complaint handling failures.
  2. £100 for the resident’s effort.
  3. £200 for the delays completing the repairs.
  4. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
2. It had also paid the resident disturbance payments of £2520 from 16 January 2023 to 13 March 2023, completed an environmental clean of the property, topped up the electricity meter by £50, and agreed to replace the resident’s fridge/freezer.
3. It appreciated how frustrating it was for the resident to see his home in this condition with no sign of progress, despite his efforts to chase up the repairs, combined with the lack of assurances given to him about the repairs.

Actions after the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process

The resident contacted the landlord on 22 August 2023. He said it had failed to complete the works outlined in his stage 1 response, and so he could not live in the property and would not pay rent. He contacted the landlord again about this in October 2023.
The landlord noted that when its appointed delivery company attempted to deliver the fridge freezer (after agreeing a date with the resident), he was not home. The landlord advised him to contact the company directly to reschedule the delivery. It also told him that once the walls had completely dried, he should contact its repairs team to arrange repainting.
In April and May 2024, the landlord evidenced it attempted to access the property on several occasions to assess the outstanding works. However, it was unable to access the property.
From the evidence available, it is unclear if the landlord has completed all repairs at the time of this investigation.

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.

Relevant policies and procedures

The landlord’s responsive repairs procedure sets out that an emergency repair will be addressed within 4 hours and made safe within 24 hours, a responsive repair will be completed within 20 working days, and major repairs/complex work will be undertaken as per the landlord’s stock investment procedures.
The landlords decant and disturbance payment policy covers residents and eligible household members, including dependant children who normally live permanently with the resident.
The landlord’s decant policy sets out that options for a temporary decant include staying with friends or family, or a budget priced hotel. The resident’s original tenancy will remain in place during a temporary decant and the tenant will be liable for rent and service charge payments. The landlord pays a disturbance allowance of £40 per day when a resident opts to stay with friends or family.
The landlord has a discretionary compensation policy which sets out that it may offer compensation when its residents are impacted by a service failure.

Reports of a leak into the resident’s property

In accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure of the building, keeping all fixtures and fittings for the supply of gas, electricity, heating, and hot water in repair and in proper working order.
Once on notice, the landlord must conduct the repairs or works it is responsible for within a reasonable period, in accordance with its obligations under the tenancy agreement and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is – this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
From the evidence available, upon the initial report of a leak, an out of hours contractor attended to make safe the electrics, in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
The landlord has not provided full records relating to the upstairs tenant and their property to this Service. This is understandable as these records would likely contain sensitive and personal information. The limited records available demonstrate the landlord attempted to access the property above on many occasions. The Ombudsman recognises this was a challenging and sensitive situation, considering the circumstances of the upstairs tenant. The Ombudsman is minded it was reasonable for the landlord to consult with third parties and seek advice from its legal team in the circumstances.
Repair records indicate the landlord was aware of the impact the leak was having on the property below. The resident contacted the landlord on many occasions and had long conversations, explaining it disconnected the lights weeks ago and he had been using candles. Call records from September 2022 state the landlord offered for an electrician to attend to make the fuse box safe again, but the resident refused, and so the landlord suggested table lamps. Additionally, in November 2022 there is reference to the landlord discussing alternative lighting. The Ombudsman is not questioning the reasons why the resident refused to engage with the landlord in terms of a further appointment with an electrician. However, this demonstrates the resident did not take all reasonable steps to mitigate the impact on his living conditions.
The Ombudsman has reviewed the photos taken from the property visit in September 2022 and notes the landlord said at the time it did not need to decant the resident. In the Ombudsman’s view, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to complete a risk assessment to evidence its decision making, especially as the resident had expressed concerns about hazards within the property and on occasion, children were present.
The Ombudsman notes the resident said he could not use the shower for months as the landlord had cut the power supply due to the leak. Additionally, the landlord reported that the leak was intermittent and confined to the bathroom. The Ombudsman expects a landlord to ensure there are adequate facilities within a property for a resident to maintain their personal hygiene. In the photos provided, there was a bath in the property. The Ombudsman understands it was frustrating and inconvenient for the resident to be unable to use the shower. Nonetheless, there was an alternative means of bathing available to the resident.
After considering the evidence available, the Ombudsman finds the resident experienced a loss of enjoyment of the property and had to live with the disrepair for over 12 weeks before the landlord offered a decant. It is evident the landlord did not update the resident regularly while he remained in the property. Contact records show the resident spent an unreasonable amount of time chasing for updates and attempting to drive matters forward. The Ombudsman finds the landlord could have done more to update the resident throughout this period, manage his expectations, and reassure him it was taking the leak seriously and taking necessary actions to get the matter resolved. The communication failings throughout exacerbated the situation and worsened the impact on the resident.

Decant

When arranging a decant, it is good practice for a landlord to consider the resident’s circumstances, the location and make best efforts to make a reasonable offer of suitable accommodation. Records show the landlord offered the resident a decant to a hotel approximately 3 miles away. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that this was unreasonable or unsuitable. The resident opted to stay with family or friends.
When the landlord decided to decant the resident, it handled the matter within a reasonable timeframe and in line with the terms of its policy. It initially anticipated it would complete the repairs within 2 weeks. However, when works were taking place to the property above, it identified a new issue with the roof which may have contributed to further water ingress. While the Ombudsman empathises with the resident and recognises having the decant extended was inconvenient, it was unforeseeable and necessary.
The landlord informed the resident that he must continue to pay the rent on his permanent property while he was decanted, and he would receive a disturbance allowance of £40 per day while staying with family or friends. The Ombudsman finds the landlord gave the resident correct information here.
From the telephone logs provided, the Ombudsman is of the view the landlord updated the resident sufficiently during the period he was decanted.
Within the resident’s complaint, he said he was dissatisfied the landlord refused to provide a hotel room on Christmas day so the resident could spend time with his children. While the Ombudsman appreciates the resident’s strength of feeling here, under the decant policy, the landlord does not have a responsibility to provide accommodation for children who do not normally live with the resident.
Within his complaint, the resident said he was homeless over the festive period. While the resident had been decanted, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that he told the landlord he could no longer stay with family or friends or that he sought alternative accommodation options during the decant period (excluding the circumstances described in paragraph 35). As such, the Ombudsman is unable to determine that the landlord acted unfairly here.
It is evident the property needed further works after the landlord told the resident he could return to the property and the decant ended. It is not clear from the evidence available whether the landlord expected the resident to live in the property from 15 March 2023 onwards (while it completed outstanding works) or if the resident’s expectations were managed sufficiently in this regard. As such the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to review this case, clarify its position, and consider whether any additional disturbance allowance is due.

Remedial works

Records show the landlord contacted the resident on 15 March 2023 and advised him he could return to the property. The resident was dissatisfied with the condition of the property and refused to return. The landlord acted appropriately by arranging a site visit with the resident. However, the landlord said the resident cancelled the appointment 30 minutes before it was due to start.
The repairs team attended the property on 11 April 2023 where they identified a list of works that the landlord needed to complete. They noted the property was habitable.
Further works were actioned within the property and on 15 May 2023, the landlord sent a text message to the resident to advise him the property was ready for him to move back in. However, the resident reported that he found faeces in the toilet, empty beer cans within the property and an overall condition that fell short of his expectations.
The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by arranging a conference call with him to discuss matters and agree a way forward. It outlined the next steps and arranged a site visit with an operations manager. It agreed to ask the complaints team to review the compensation awarded at stage 1. The landlord’s actions here demonstrate it took the resident’s concerns seriously and wanted to put things right.
At the site visit, the operations manager stated the property looked, “like a void ready to hand over.” It identified the property needed cleaning. The resident highlighted a list of snagging issues. The landlord evidenced that it addressed these promptly ‘in-house’ rather than using an external contractor. It then arranged a further inspection with its operatives and surveyor. The Ombudsman finds at this stage, the landlord had close oversight of the works. In the circumstances, this was fair and reasonable.
On 30 May 2023, the landlord emailed the resident setting out the completed works and its position. It had identified lingering damp patches which needed to dry naturally as the leak affected solid walls. It said its maintenance team would return in late August 2023 to stain block and repaint the affected areas.
The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord returned to the property in August 2023 as promised or contacted the resident to schedule an appointment within a reasonable period. This was a service failure and delayed the conclusion of the remedial works following the leak.

Compensation

Within the landlord’s final complaint response, it offered compensation of £50 for the complaint handling failures, £200 for the delays completing the repairs, £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused and £100 for the resident’s effort. The Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (available on our website) sets out what we consider when determining cases. The £650 compensation offered by the landlord falls within our third highest band of compensation, for situations where there has been maladministration but no permanent impact on the resident. This includes factors that are relevant to this complaint such as chasing responses and repair delays.
After considering all the circumstances of this case, the financial compensation provided by the landlord was in accordance with our guidance for the landlord’s failures concerning repair delays, resident’s effort, and complaint handling. However, the Ombudsman finds it appropriate to award further compensation to reflect the impact of the communication failings identified and the detriment caused to the resident while living with the leak for over 12 weeks.
While the landlord apologised for its failings and offered redress, a repair remained unresolved for a significant period after the landlord issued its final complaint response. This raises questions about the effectiveness of the landlord’s complaint procedure and whether it learnt from the complaint outcome, as we expect it to under the dispute resolution principles.
The Ombudsman has recently made several orders in other investigations into this landlord about reviewing its repairs service delivery and its communication. The Ombudsman has therefore not made orders or recommendations around these aspects of service but expects the landlord to take all relevant learning from this case into account going forward.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak into the resident’s property and the associated decant and remedial work.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified.
2. Review this case and establish the date it considered the property ready for inhabitation after the decant. It should then write to the resident to:
  1. Set out its position, with an explanation.
  2. Clarify whether any additional disturbance allowance is due.
3. Pay the resident £100 compensation (in addition to the sum previously offered) to recognise the impact caused by the communication failures identified within this report.
4. Pay the resident £100 compensation (in addition to the sum previously offered) to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident while he lived in the property while the leak was ongoing.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recognises the landlord has attempted to arrange the remaining works on several occasions in 2024. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord follows up with the resident within 28 days of receipt of this report to arrange a date to assess the outstanding repair(s). It should then update the resident with a schedule of works and use its best endeavours to agree a start date with the resident.