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

Hyde Housing Association Limited (202323115)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323115

Hyde Housing Association Limited

10 May 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. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a kitchen and bathroom replacement.
    2. The landlord’s handling of outstanding repairs to the property.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the first floor of a converted house. She moved into the property in 2018 through a mutual exchange.
  2. The resident complained to her landlord on 23 May 2023. In her complaint, she said that since 2018, she had received multiple letters from its contractors to arrange a survey of her property, but they did not respond to her contact. She asked it to replace her kitchen and bathroom because they were over 15 years old. She also asked it to fit an extractor fan in the bathroom. She added that she did not have any carbon dioxide monitors in her kitchen or boiler cupboard.
  3. On 2 June 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It upheld the complaint regarding the lack of response from its contractors and acknowledged it should have taken action sooner to survey the kitchen and bathroom. It agreed to fit 2 smoke alarms and fit extractor fans on 7 June 2023. It arranged a surveyor inspection for the bathroom, kitchen and the windows on 12 June 2023. It said that its contractors would contact her to deliver the carbon dioxide alarms. It offered her £150 compensation for her efforts, the delays in completing repairs and for any distress and inconvenience caused.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. She said that it had fitted the carbon dioxide alarms but it had not yet completed any repairs to the extractor fans or smoke detectors, despite attending the property 3 times in June 2023. She said the surveyor had inspected the property and found that it needed to replace some windows. She also believed it needed to replace the bathroom and kitchen. She mentioned that both of these rooms had mould and that the landlord’s handling of the repairs impacted her mental health.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 13 October 2023. It apologised for the delay in arranging the repairs after the surveyor inspection. It listed various repairs to the kitchen and bathroom and to 2 windows in the lounge. It said that it had booked the repairs for 23 October 2023 and 24 October 2023. It confirmed that the bathroom did not require a replacement but said that it had added the kitchen to its replacement programme for the following financial year between April 2024 and March 2025. It increased its compensation offer to £450.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint to this Service as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s decision to not replace her bathroom. The complaint became one that this Service could investigate on 24 January 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said that the landlord’s handling of the repairs and request for the kitchen and bathroom replacement affected her mental health. While this Service does not doubt the resident’s comments about their health, it is outside our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme. This Service has considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
  2. The resident’s complaint was about the landlord’s handling of repairs to her property and a request for a replacement of the kitchen and bathroom. The Ombudsman is unable to assess the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of mould in the kitchen and bathroom. This is because the resident raised this to the landlord after it had provided its stage 1 complaint response and after it had inspected the property. Where a resident raises additional complaints during the complaints process after the stage 1 complaint response is issued, it should log the new issues as a separate complaint. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time of the complaint.
  3. The resident has said that the issues related to her kitchen and bathroom, and the various repairs, had been ongoing since 2018. The Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which relate to historical events because the quality and availability of any evidence that may have existed at the time may not be present now. The focus of this investigation will therefore be from when the resident made the complaint in May 2023. We will consider events up until the landlord’s final complaint response, in October 2023, and whether the landlord completed the actions that it said it would within its final complaint response. This is in accordance with paragraphs 42(b) and 42(c) of the Scheme.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a kitchen and bathroom replacement

  1. The landlord did not dispute that there were failings in its handling of the resident’s request for a kitchen and bathroom replacement. In its complaint responses, it stated that it should have taken action sooner and also acknowledged a breakdown in communication by its contractors who had sent letters requesting to survey the resident’s bathroom and kitchen.
  2. Where there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by it (including an apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, this Service considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  3. Following the resident’s complaint, a surveyor inspected the property on 12 June 2023. They identified a number of works required to repair the kitchen and bathroom. The repairs included repositioning the bath and renewing the bath panel, tiling the head of the bath and resealing the wash basin. To offer interim repairs while awaiting the kitchen replacement the following financial year, it said it would raise the wall units and tile the area underneath, replace some units and doors and replace the floor covering.
  4. The landlord acknowledged its failings regarding a 3 month delay between the surveyor’s inspection and when the surveyor produced the schedule of works, on 19 September 2023. Once it had the list of required repairs, it kept the resident updated regarding her request for a kitchen replacement and it continued to progress the repairs in the meantime.
  5. On 26 September 2023, the landlord told the resident that it was awaiting a decision on the kitchen replacement from its head of service. It later told her on 6 October 2023 that “they” have refused to do a kitchen replacement at this time, but it said it had added her to the list for a replacement in the following financial year. The landlord should be mindful of its wording when communicating with residents and ensure that it explains its decisions fully to prevent any confusion or distress to the resident.
  6. The landlord scheduled the kitchen repairs for 5 October 2023, but the resident asked to reschedule the appointment. The landlord has provided evidence to this Service which suggests that the resident refused works to both her bathroom and kitchen during conversations on 9 October 2023 and 11 October 2023. However, the resident denies that she refused repairs to the bathroom. The Ombudsman is unable to reach a firm conclusion on this due to the lack of evidence provided.
  7. In the landlord’s final complaint response, it said it would not replace her bathroom because this was not required. It instead reoffered the repairs. While the resident was unhappy with this decision, the landlord is entitled to assess its stock and decide the most appropriate action as to whether to repair or replace components.
  8. In line with the Decent Homes Standard (DHS), the landlord must provide reasonably modern facilities which is considered to be 30 years old or less for a bathroom. The landlord confirmed that it had replaced the bathroom in 2014 which is within the lifespan set out in the DHS. It was appropriate for it to instead reoffer the repairs to resolve the concerns that the resident had. The landlord can make suitable repairs in the bathroom where possible rather than replacing it.
  9. In the final complaint response, the landlord reoffered the repairs to the resident. While the resident had already refused these works previously, it was appropriate for it to continue to offer the repairs as this showed its commitment to putting things right for her through its complaint process. It is understood that the resident refused the works again following the final complaint response.
  10. The landlord apologised for its handling of the request for the replacements at both stages of its complaints process. It acknowledged that it had delayed in arranging the required works following the surveyor’s inspection. It was appropriate for it to acknowledge the delay and the impact that this would have understandably had on the resident.
  11. The resident remains on the landlord’s works programme for a kitchen replacement between April 2024 and March 2025. The landlord was responsible for the delay in arranging the interim repairs initially, but it is not responsible for not completing the works following the resident’s refusals.
  12. The landlord offered a total of £450 compensation which it said was to make up for what had happened. It is understood that the compensation was for both its handling of the request for the kitchen and bathroom replacement and for its handling of various other repairs. This was made up of £200 for service delays, £150 for any distress and inconvenience caused and £100 for the resident’s efforts.
  13. Considering the failures acknowledged by the landlord throughout the complaints process, its offer of £450 compensation is proportionate redress for its handling of the request for the kitchen and bathroom replacement only. The amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a failure which adversely affected the resident. The Ombudsman has therefore determined that the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s request for a kitchen and bathroom replacement.
  14. Along with the complaint response, the landlord attached a compensation acceptance form for the resident to sign to accept its compensation offer. The form had the word “date” at the top, which suggests the landlord did not edit the form or check this thoroughly before sending it to the resident. The landlord should be mindful when using template letters or forms to ensure that it has been personalised to the recipient.
  15. The landlord is recommended to reoffer the repairs to the bathroom that the resident previously declined. It is also recommended to provide the resident with an estimated date for it to complete the kitchen replacement agreed for this financial year.

The landlord’s handling of outstanding repairs to the property

  1. In the resident’s complaint to the landlord, she said that she did not have any carbon dioxide detectors in her kitchen or boiler cupboard. She also asked it to fit an extractor fan in the bathroom. The landlord contacted her to discuss the complaint further and she said she also did not have smoke alarms in her kitchen and living room. It was appropriate for the landlord to arrange to install the carbon dioxide detectors and smoke alarms after notification of this. It has a duty to provide smoke alarms in line with the Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (Amendment) Regulations 2022.
  2. When a landlord is notified of a repair being required, it is expected to respond appropriately in line with the repair timescales set out in its repairs procedures. The landlord’s procedure in this case is to complete non-emergency repairs within 20 working days.
  3. There was poor record keeping by the landlord in relation to its repairs. Following the resident’s complaint, it updated its complaint records and noted that it had raised works for 6 June 2023 to fit new extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom, but this was not reflected on its repair records.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 23 August 2023 and said that the landlord had attended to fit the extractor fans 3 times in June 2023 but each time it could not complete the repairs. The landlord’s repair logs do not reference any repair attempts to the extractor fans around this time and so it is difficult to fully assess the impact of the failed appointments on the resident. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have monitored the repairs as part of its complaint commitment to ensure that these were completed within its 20 working day timescale, but there is no evidence to suggest that it did so.
  5. It is evident that the landlord delayed in raising the works again to fit the extractor fans following the resident’s complaint escalation in August 2023. The resident chased this again on 9 October 2023 and it raised the works 2 days later. It is understood that it completed this repair on 25 October 2023. It did not explain why there was a delay in raising the works again within its complaint response. The resident has said that the landlord has not completed works to make good the area around the two extractor fans it installed. The landlord is ordered to do this.
  6. The landlord’s repair records do not reference the repairs raised to fit the smoke alarms or carbon dioxide monitors. In its final complaint response, it said it had provided the carbon dioxide monitors but it is unclear from its repair records as to when this occurred. Additionally, it said the smoke alarms remained outstanding but there is no reference to any repairs raised to install the smoke alarms at the property.
  7. This was a failing with a potentially severe detriment to the health and safety of the resident and her household. While the landlord apologised for the delays, it is inappropriate that it could not evidence why the delays had occurred despite the resident chasing the repair on 9 October 2023. It also could not evidence when it planned to resolve these works through its repair records.
  8. At the surveyor’s inspection on 12 June 2023, the landlord identified repairs required to the windows in the resident’s lounge. It said it needed to replace 2 windows because it could not obtain the parts to repair it. The resident chased the repairs on 9 October 2023 after not receiving any updates. The landlord raised works on the following day to replace the windows on 25 October 2023. It is unclear from the landlord’s records as to whether it replaced the windows or only inspected on this date and, as such, it is unclear whether it has completed this repair or not.
  9. Considering that the resident had complained about the repairs required to the lounge windows, the extractor fans, the smoke alarms and the carbon monoxide detectors, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have completed the repairs within its repair timescales of 20 working days. It is evident that it did not meet this timescale for the various repairs.
  10. The landlord apologised for its handling of the various repairs to the property in its final complaint response. It was appropriate for it to outline the repairs scheduled to the lounge windows and extractor fan, but it did not refer to the outstanding repair of the smoke alarms. As previously explained, the landlord had offered £450 compensation which was proportionate to its failings in its handling of the resident’s request for the replacement of her kitchen and bathroom only. The compensation offered by the landlord was not sufficient to also offer redress for the failings in its handling of outstanding repairs to the property.
  11. Considering this, the landlord is ordered to pay a further £350 compensation to the resident for its handling of outstanding repairs to the property. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a failure which adversely impacted the resident. The landlord has already apologised for its handling of outstanding repairs to the property within its final complaint response.
  12. The landlord is ordered to confirm whether it has now completed works to the windows, extractor fan and smoke alarms; if it has not, it is ordered to confirm a date to complete the works within the next 20 working days.
  13. The Ombudsman would have ordered the landlord to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s knowledge and information management spotlight report in regard to its poor record keeping. However, this Service has not made such an order because the landlord has already provided this after the complaints process ended as part of a wider Ombudsman investigation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a kitchen and bathroom replacement.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of outstanding repairs to the property.

Orders

  1. Within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay an additional £350 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its handling of outstanding repairs to the property. This should be paid directly to the resident and not to the rent account.
    2. Confirm if it has now completed works to the windows, smoke alarms and works to make good the area around the 2 extractor fans. If not, it is ordered to confirm a date to complete the works within the next 20 working days. It should provide the date to the resident and this Service. If an inspection is required prior to the works, the inspection should be arranged within 10 working days of the date of this determination and it should confirm its date of inspection to the resident and this Service. It should then arrange the repair within a further 20 working days from the date of the inspection.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the £450 compensation it offered in its final complaint response, if it has not already done so. This is because the finding of reasonable redress is dependent on the redress already offered by the landlord. This should be paid directly to the resident and not to the rent account.
  2. The landlord is recommended to contact the resident to re-offer the repairs to her bathroom which she had previously refused. This is because the finding of reasonable redress is dependent on the redress already offered by the landlord.
  3. The landlord is recommended to provide the resident with an estimated date for it to complete the kitchen replacement agreed for this financial year.
  4. The landlord is recommended to review its template letters and forms when these are sent to ensure that they are personalised to the recipient.