Hyde Housing Association Limited (202324603)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324603

Hyde Housing Association Limited

17 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 the landlord’s handling of a repair to the oven and fan.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the housing association and has lived in the 2-bedroom multi-storey flat with his wife since 2013.
3. The resident first reported the extractor fan not working on 6 October 2022. The landlord attended but the replacement fan was too small, so the repair could not be completed. Following the submission of a complaint in June 2023, the landlord raised a further repair to the fan, with the evidence suggesting this was replaced in July 2023. The resident contacted the landlord on 27 September 2023, to advise the hob on the cooker had sparked and caught fire. A further report was made on 3 October 2023 for the extractor fan not working.
4. The resident submitted a complaint on 14 June 2023. He said the fan repairs which he reported a year earlier were outstanding. He also told the landlord the oven was not working.
5. On 28 June 2023, the landlord responded to the complaint. It apologised for the inconvenience caused, but advised the oven was gifted, therefore it was not responsible for repairs or replacement. The landlord upheld the complaint due to the delay in repairs the extractor fan. It offered £50 for the repair delay and £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused. It confirmed it was still waiting for the contractor to provide a date to repair the extractor fan. The landlord sent a further letter to the resident on 7 July 2023, when it reaffirmed its position regarding the oven. It stated it would not change its decision on the matter.
6. The evidence seen by this Service suggests the resident remained unhappy and on 3 November 2023, he asked for the complaint to be escalated. He said the landlord had failed to complete the work confirmed in the stage 1 response.
7. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 8 December 2023. The landlord confirmed the oven was not gifted and agreed it should have known this. It arranged the necessary repairs and acknowledged it should have done these sooner. The landlord offered compensation and agreed to reimburse the resident for the hob he had purchased while waiting for the repairs. The compensation (not inclusive of the hob costs) was offered for the following:
   1. £200 for the complaint handling failures.
   2. £100 for customer effort.
   3. £300 for the delays in completing the repairs.
   4. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Post completion of the complaint

8. Following the final complaint response, a contractor completed the necessary repairs to the extractor fan and cooker. The landlord has confirmed these were completed on 21 December 2023, and no further issues have been reported.
9. The resident contacted this Service on 30 January 2024. He confirmed the landlord had offered £900 compensation, but said he took this for other issues not related to this case. The resident said he had fixed the oven himself and the landlord had agreed to refund the cost but had not made any attempt to do so. The resident confirmed he wanted this Service to investigate his complaint.

Assessment and findings

10. The landlord’s repair policy confirms it is responsible for the electric wiring, sockets and light fittings and appliances supplied by it. This is confirmed in the resident’s tenancy agreement.
11. When the resident first reported a problem with the extractor fan, the landlord responded appropriately by attending to replace it. It was however identified that the fan was the wrong size, so could not be installed. There is no evidence to confirm the landlord returned to the property, and 7 months later the resident raised a complaint regarding the outstanding repair. The landlord is expected to have an effective repair management system in place which should identify any outstanding repairs. It should then continue to monitor these repairs through to completion. The Ombudsman finds this a failure on the part of the landlord.
12. Although requested by this Service, the landlord has not provided evidence to show the correspondence between the parties across this 7-month timeframe. It is not therefore known if, or how often, the resident chased the outstanding repair. This raises concern with the landlord’s record keeping as it should have a robust record of contacts and repairs which provide an audit trail to enhance its ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
13. Although progress was made once the complaint was submitted, it should not have taken this step by the resident to force this. It took 9 months from the fault being reported for the new extractor fan to be fitted. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the time taken to replace the fan was unreasonable. This exceeded the timescales included in the repairs policy and is likely to have caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident.
14. In the stage 1 complaint response, although the landlord acknowledged and offered compensation for the delay in the repairs to the extractor fan, it said it was not responsible for the oven repairs. The landlord sent a follow-on letter a week later, in which it thanked the resident for further correspondence. It confirmed its initial decision was correct and this would not change. The correspondence between the parties was not provided as evidence; therefore, it is difficult to determine if the landlord’s response was reasonable and if it addressed the points raised by the resident. The concern regarding the landlord’s record keeping is reinforced by its failure to provide this information.
15. Following the escalation of the complaint, the landlord provided its final complaint response on 8 December 2023, 25 working days from its receipt. This was outside of the policy timescale of 20 working days from receipt. Although this was slightly over the policy timescale, it is unlikely to have caused any serious detriment to the resident.
16. The landlord acknowledged and confirmed it had made a mistake regarding the oven repairs and it should have completed the repairs sooner than it did. However, it did not address the oven fire that was reported by the resident in September 2023. It did not show any empathy or understanding of how this may have affected the resident, or investigate whether this incident could have been avoided if a repair had been completed when the problem was reported 3 months earlier. It did not demonstrate how it had learned from the mistakes it had made, and what steps it would implement to ensure this error did not happen again.
17. The repairs to the oven and fan were completed on 21 December 2023. Consequently, it took the landlord 6 months to complete the oven repairs, and 5 months to complete the extractor fan repairs following its first replacement in July 2023. The Ombudsman finds these timescales unreasonable and not in line with the landlord’s repair timescales. As a result of the delay, the resident felt the need to purchase an additional hob. Although the landlord committed to reimbursing this cost, the resident should not have had to take this action.
18. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, it is our view that the landlord’s total offer of £1,000 compensation across both stages of the complaint process was proportionate. This offer would increase further following the landlord’s commitment to reimburse the hob costs which would be paid following the provision of evidence from the resident. The compensation offered by the landlord reflects a maladministration finding based on the significant failures and recognises the serious impact of these on the resident (physical and/or emotional).
19. However, the landlord did not demonstrate that it learned sufficient lessons from the outcome of the case. In particular, it is of concern that the oven fire was not addressed in the final complaint response, and the landlord has failed to show how it took learning from this case so that it is able to make accurate decisions on repairs responsibility in future. Overall, the Ombudsman therefore finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the repair to the oven and fan.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of a repair to the oven and fan.

Orders

21. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified within this report.
    2. Provide evidence that it has paid the resident the £1,000 compensation it offered through the complaints process.
    3. Provide the resident and this Service with evidence as to how it will take learning from this case to ensure a similar mistake does not happen again in regard to its decision-making on repairs responsibilities, in particular with regard to cooker faults.

Recommendations

22. The landlord should consider prompting the resident for evidence of the costs associated with the hob he purchased. Once received, it should complete the reimbursement of the cost as agreed in the final complaint response.