Hyde Housing Association Limited (202327959)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327959

Hyde Housing Association Limited

28 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

1. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s communication with the resident.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder on a flat, situated in a larger block. On 23 December 2022 an external wall system risk assessment was carried out. It concluded that the cladding on the building posed a fire risk “on the upper end of medium” and that works were required to resolve this. The landlord later advised it was responsible for carrying out these works.
3. After an initial exchange of information between the resident and landlord in January 2023, in which the resident was provided an ‘EWS1 form’, the resident went on to chase the landlord regularly for updates on the progress of the works. He logged a formal complaint on an unclear date between 27 May 2023 and 31 May 2023. He complained about not being kept informed and poor communication.
4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 5 June 2023. It apologised that the resident was not kept updated enough and paid £200 compensation in recognition of the “customer effort” (time and trouble) gone to. It said it would raise the issues with senior management to ensure improvement, and provided the resident with an update on the cladding works.
5. On 10 July 2023 the resident asked to escalate his complaint, stating that the landlord’s “total and complete failure to provide residents with timely updates or to prioritise this issue is causing severe undue stress and anxiety”. He chased the landlord in July, August, and September 2023. On 11 September 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident explaining that it could not provide an update at this moment in time, but would continue to chase the relevant staff member on his behalf.
6. On 14 November 2024 the resident contacted the Ombudsman. He wanted help progressing his complaint and for the landlord to commit to providing regular updates.
7. The landlord provided a further update on 23 November 2023 that was “in talks” with the developer. It provided a further update on 18 January 2024.
8. On 8 February 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It gave the resident some insight on the reasons for the delays and apologised both for poor communication, and for poor complaint handling due to its delay in issuing a stage 2 response. It offered £750 compensation made up of £300 for time and trouble, £300 for complaint handling, and £150 for distress and inconvenience.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s communication with the resident

9. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are to ‘be fair’, to ‘put things right’, and to ‘learn from outcomes’.
10. The landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged that the resident’s emails had been ignored. Internal emails at the time show that staff were unsure how to respond, as “no update was available”, which contributed to a lack of responses. The landlord should still have kept in communication with the resident however, especially as he was concerned about a legitimate fire risk at the property. It was right therefore to apologise for this at stage 1 and to pledge to ‘learn from outcomes’. The landlord said it would raise feedback with senior managers. Although there is no evidence to show that it did this, the evidence does show that learning appeared to take effect, as updates were provided after this date, even if there was no change in the progress of the works.
11. The landlord’s stage 2 response explained that “the information we provided [to] you within your stage 1 letter was not clear on what next steps were required to move forward the outstanding works.” It added that “an update was provided to residents in November 2023, however we could have done more to explain why the works weren’t due to take place yet”. It sought to put this right by giving a detailed explanation of the cause of the delays. The evidence shows that the landlord’s description of its shortcomings in communication was accurate.
12. The landlord offered £300 for poor communication and additional £150 for distress and inconvenience. It was appropriate to award an additional amount for distress and inconvenience, as the resident had frequently told the landlord about the stress and anxiety its poor communication had resulted in. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident but where there has been no permanent impact on the resident, compensation of up to £600 should be considered. The £450 the landlord offered therefore was appropriate in the circumstances.
13. The landlord still however needed to ‘learn from outcomes’. It said in its stage 2 complaint response that “we know we must get quicker at responding to customers when a request for updates or information is initially reported” and that it was “undertaking a number of actions to ensure we are able to do this across all service areas”. Again, although the landlord did not provide evidence of how it did this to the Ombudsman, the evidence shows that after this point the landlord provided updates to the resident, alongside a date when he could expect a further update. The evidence available shows that the landlord honoured each of these dates as promised. For example, it sent a detailed update in April 2024. Therefore, it is likely that the landlord undertook learning as promised and that it was effective.
14. In conclusion, the landlord’s failings resulted in distress and inconvenience to the resident, as well as putting the resident to significant time and trouble. It successfully followed the Dispute Resolution Principles and provided adequate compensation and outcomes because of the complaint. It also demonstrated its ability to learn from outcomes. Therefore, while we recognise the impact that the situation has had on the resident, the landlord provided reasonable redress in respect of its communication with the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

15. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it should respond to stage 2 escalation requests “within 20 days of receipt”. In this case however, the landlord exceeded this timescale by approximately 193 days. This was a serious failing. In the stage 2 response the landlord was right to say that “despite your efforts to chase your complaint escalation, we failed to ensure that your complaint was escalated in line with our service level agreement.” It was appropriate that it apologised, adding that it was “so sorry for the delays in raising this for you, this is not the level of service you deserve.”
16. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that compensation of up to £600 should be considered in similar instances, where a failure has not had a permanent impact on the resident. The evidence shows that although the landlord failed to provide a stage 2 complaint response in line with its policies, it did communicate with the resident around the substantive issue contained within the complaint during the time in which the resident was waiting. This served to mitigate some of the adverse effect experienced by the resident. Therefore, the compensation, which fell in the middle of the bracket advised in the remedies guidance, was appropriate.
17. The landlord also acknowledged that it was “important that we learn from experiences like [the resident’s] to improve the services we deliver”. It explained that “information has been fed back to our team to ensure that we are constantly reviewing our contacts from residents to avoid issues like this happening in future”. The landlord did not submit evidence to the Ombudsman to demonstrate that this learning has taken place, however the Ombudsman notes that on 10 January 2024, we instructed the landlord to carry out a review of “its practice in relation to its system for managing and responding to complaints” under paragraph 54.f of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. Therefore, the landlord’s claim that it was “conducting learning” around complaint handling was accurate. It is not deemed necessary to make any learning-based orders in this case. In conclusion, the landlord offered reasonable redress in respect of its complaint handling.

Determination

18. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress in respect of its communication with the resident.
19. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress in respect of its complaint handling.

Recommendations

20. The landlord should act in line with the Ombudsman’s 2021 report, ‘Spotlight on: Dealing with cladding complaints’, which includes: 
    1. ensuring that it is proactive in providing appropriate and timely updates on a regular basis
    2. responding to specific issues raised by residents and not provide generic responses. 
    3. responding to an individual’s situation and considering all the possible options that might help.
21. Pay the resident the £750 already offered, if it has not done so already, as findings of reasonable redress have been made on the basis that this has been paid.