Hyde Housing Association Limited (202329319)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329319

Hyde Housing Association Limited

13 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 response to a report of a leak and associated repairs.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord and has lived in the 1 bed second floor flat since 2003.
3. The resident first reported a leak in the bathroom on 10 May 2023. She asked for a roof inspection to identify where the leak was coming from before any interior repairs were done as she suspected it was from the roof. Further reports of a leak were made on 29 June, 6 July, and 14 July 2023. Although repairs were completed on 27 September 2023, on 13 October 2023, the resident told the landlord the leak had spread, and it leaked every time it rained.
4. While the landlord’s inspection on 25 October 2023 diagnosed the leak was condensation from the extractor fan and not the roof, the resident maintained her stance that the leak was from the roof. She asked again for the cavity to be inspected. A further inspection by a contractor identified an interior leak within the roof cavity. Additional damage to the bedroom ceiling was identified. Internal repairs were booked in before the air vent was replaced and there were delays in the completion of works.
5. The resident had already submitted her complaint on 6 July 2023. She said this was due to the inadequate response to the leak which had damaged her bathroom ceiling. She said she had repeatedly asked for a thorough inspection to identify the cause of the leak, but she did not feel listened to, and appointments were made for interior repairs without a diagnostic inspection being completed.
6. The landlord responded to the complaint on 3 August 2023. It apologised for the time taken and for the distress and inconvenience caused. The landlord upheld the complaint in respect of the time taken to approve the roof repairs but did not uphold the approach taken following the initial report of the leak. It said the repair was cancelled at the resident’s request who believed the operative was going to do the wrong repair. The landlord confirmed the dates for the outstanding repairs and acknowledged the learning taken from the complaint. The landlord offered £300 compensation that was accepted by the resident.
7. The resident escalated her complaint on 23 October 2023 as she said the leak was getting worse, damaging her property, and causing mould. The landlord confirmed it would respond by 20 November 2023.
8. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 16 November 2023. It agreed that it had not repaired the leak when it should have, and it had not provided any reassurance on how it would be rectified. It acknowledged internal repairs had been arranged without the source of the leak being traced or rectified. It stated that additional roof repairs were completed on 31 October 2023, and internal work commenced on 6 November 2023. The landlord agreed it had failed to do what it said it would, and it should have progressed the work sooner. The landlord offered an additional £650 compensation which covered the following:
   1. £200 for the delays in the repairs.
   2. £100 for complaint handling failures.
   3. £250 for distress and inconvenience.
   4. £100 for customer effort.

Post completion of complaint

9. The resident told the landlord that the complaint was not closed as the repairs were still outstanding and were not due to complete until 21 November 2023. She did not believe £650 compensation covered the full experience, the service she received, the delays, and the issues she faced. The landlord later increased the offer to £750.
10. The air vent was replaced on 7 December 2023, and the internal repairs were completed on 20 December 2023. The resident brought her complaint to this Service on 4 December 2023 albeit on 3 January 2024, the resident asked the landlord to review its final offer of £750. She said that this was due to the landlord’s delay and misdiagnosis of the leak, the planning of the repairs which led to additional unnecessary repairs and appointments and the disruption and inconvenience caused to her.
11. The resident informed this Service she had refused the final offer of £650 as the repairs were still ongoing. While the offer was increased to £750, the repairs remained outstanding. The resident believed additional compensation should be awarded for the later errors which prolonged the completion of the repairs.

Assessment and findings

12. Upon receipt of the first report of the leak in May 2023, in line with its responsibilities, the landlord raised a repair. Although the landlord has not provided supporting evidence, it said the repair was cancelled at the resident’s request as she believed the operative was going to do the wrong job. While this may have been an accurate version of events, there is no evidence that the landlord entered further dialogue, sought to assure the resident or arranged any further repairs. This left the resident with a leak into her property which the Ombudsman finds unreasonable. Once the landlord was put on notice, it should have collaborated with the resident to establish the best way of tracing the leak with the aim of rectifying it within an appropriate timescale.
13. While further reports of leaks were reported in June and July 2023, there is little supporting evidence to confirm what was found during any resulting visits or if any action was taken after it was passed to the roofing team. The Ombudsman finds this a concern in terms of record keeping and repair management as the landlord is expected to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. 
14. There was a delay before any repairs were completed on 27 September 2023. While the landlord acknowledged these delays in its complaint response, without any justification to explain why, the Ombudsman finds the delay unreasonable. With little pro-active communication, it was the resident who invested time and effort chasing the landlord for updates, which she should not have been expected to do.
15. Further reports of a leak were made shortly after the completion of the repairs in September 2023. It was understandable for the resident to conclude the initial repairs were unsuccessful as the problem continued, causing more disruption, inconvenience, and damage to her bathroom. While it was reasonable for the landlord to accept the opinion of its trained staff, at the request of the resident and the provision of evidence, a further inspection was completed by a contractor. The root cause of the leak was found and follow on repairs were requested accordingly. However, it is noted that 5 months had passed since the initial inspection request from the resident. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was unreasonable as the landlord had a responsibility to trace the root cause earlier than it did, ultimately limiting the internal damage caused.
16. The landlord is expected to resolve repairs within its published timescales. It aims to achieve first-time resolutions to reduce the number of visits, and the inconvenience and impact on the resident. When the resident raised concerns as to why internal repairs were arranged before the replacement of the fan, the landlord said it was not aware of the work to the fan. This raises concern in relation to the landlord’s planning practices and communication with the contractors who diagnosed the leak and were to complete the fan replacement. This finding again suggests fault with the landlord’s record keeping and repairs management.
17. Due to a lack of communication from the contactor installing the fan, the resident asked the landlord for the contact number so she could contact them. The Ombudsman finds the landlord’s response to this unreasonable. Although it was fair to offer the resident contact details, it should have taken ownership itself to track repairs and set out whether it shared the resident’s concerns.
18. Although the external and internal repairs are now complete, it took 7 months from the first report by the resident to do so – in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was an excessive timeframe. The repair exceeded the timescales set out by the landlord in its repair policy and caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. While the landlord should be expected to rely on the opinion of its trained staff, on this occasion, the resident provided the landlord with information and evidence which should have directed it to investigate the leak from the roof cavity.
19. The landlord’s complaint responses acknowledge that there were failings in its response to the report of a leak and the associated repairs. The landlord admitted it took too long for the repairs to be completed and that it made the mistake of arranging internal repairs prior to the leak being resolved. It agreed the repair had been a lengthy process which had caused the resident distress and inconvenience. It acknowledged it had failed to do what it said it would and had not offered the resident any reassurance that it would rectify the leak. In identifying its own service failures, the landlord also acknowledged the areas it needed to work on to stop this from happening again.
20. The landlord did not explain why it did not inspect the roof cavity as requested by the resident until 5 months later. For the landlord to demonstrate openness and honesty, it would have been appropriate to investigate this through the final complaint response and for it to acknowledge that in failing to do this, it prolonged the leak unnecessarily. This was a complaint handling shortcoming on the part of the landlord.
21. However, the landlord’s overall offer of redress was proportionate given the circumstances of the case. In accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the total compensation of £1,050 was within a range that we would recommend for situations where there has been a serious service failure that has had a serious long-term impact on a resident. This was therefore a reasonable offer of redress from the landlord in recognition of the landlord’s failings between May and December 2023.
22. The Ombudsman is conducting a wider investigation into the landlord under Paragraph 49 of our Scheme and has made orders already in regard to its record keeping, including with specific reference to roof repairs (case 202228794). As the landlord has provided a copy of its self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management, similar recommendations will not be repeated within this report.

Determination

23. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to a report of a leak and associated repairs.

Recommendations

24. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £1,050 compensation that it offered through its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses. The Ombudsman’s reasonable redress determination has been made on the basis that this payment has been made.
25. If not already do so, the landlord should complete a post inspection to confirm the resident is satisfied with the work completed to her bathroom and bedroom. Confirmation of the outcome to this should be provided with any outstanding work agreed in conjunction with her.