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

Hyde Housing Association Limited (202337594)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202337594

Hyde Housing Association Limited

21 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:
    1. Repairs in the property.
    2. Pest control issues affecting the property.
    3. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. The property is a flat within a converted house.
  2. The landlord’s records show that previous efforts to address pest control issues affecting the communal bin store area were completed in May 2022. Separately, the resident pursued repairs to her property in October 2022, following an inspection in August 2022, but it remains unclear as to what the works consisted of. In September 2023, she raised concern that she had experienced difficulty getting works completed and said that appointments were booked but contractors did not turn up. She added that she was not paid for days she could not go into work as she was a teacher, and that wet patches were now appearing on her internal facing bedroom wall.
  3. The resident raised a complaint in October 2023. She reported that she had experienced wet walls in both bedrooms for 18 months and other internal walls were also affected. Contractors had repeatedly missed appointments and there had been a lack of communication. She added that each window in the property needed easing and adjusting and that there were rats in the communal area impacting a number of properties. She asked that a damaged downpipe from her toilet was added to the list of outstanding works and for the landlord to paint the damaged walls after repairs were completed. She advised that she would not be available for an appointment on 19 October 2023 for pest control to attend as she was at work, but that the issue was external.
  4. An inspection took place on 12 October 2023. Following this, works were raised to install a handrail to the stairs, ease and adjust windows and renew seals, ease and adjust a door and install a draught excluder, hack off wall plaster to the wall and chimney alcove in one bedroom for further investigation, hack off the plaster in the rear bedroom under the window, check external brickwork under the external rear bedroom window, and install a fitting around the stack pipe at ground level.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 20 October 2023. It acknowledged that this had been a long drawn out process and the resident had been communicating with it regarding the issues for over 6 months. It admitted that it should have completed works sooner, and that it had failed to follow-up and repair the damage caused to the property despite repeated contact from the resident. Following an inspection on 12 October 2023, it had arranged for a number of works to take place on 6 November 2023. It also confirmed that its pest control team had attended the previous day, and follow-on visits would be required, which it would monitor closely. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused and offered £500 compensation, comprised of: £100 for customer effort, £250 for the delays in its service and £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  6. The resident initially asked for her complaint to be escalated on 29 October 2023. She explained that she did not feel the landlord had understood the level of distress caused to her, stating that the property was always cold unless she kept the heating on which she could not afford to do. She lacked confidence in the landlord’s commitment to complete works. The landlord initially asked the resident to confirm she wanted the complaint to be escalated. It also said that it would consider refunding her the difference in her energy usage if she provided her gas bills. The resident responded at the time and said that compensation should be discussed once the issues were resolved.
  7. Works to ease and adjust windows and the door, and install the handrail were completed on 6 November 2023. Replacement glass was ordered for the kitchen window. The resident expressed dissatisfaction on the day that only 1 operative turned up to do the plastering work and did not arrive with materials. The work was too big for 1 person meaning that it was not completed. She added that the second bedroom was not attended to and provided photos. She advised that she would not be available until 30 November 2023 for the remaining works and continued to ask the landlord to provide a date for these.
  8. Pest control attended on 22 November 2023, however, the resident said she was not aware of the appointment over the phone and said that the issue was in the front garden. The operative had previously treated the garden during a visit to a neighbouring property.
  9. The landlord’s records suggest that work to the plaster and the rear bedroom was attended to on 29 January 2024 and walls were skimmed but the resident advised that no one attended this appointment. Its records also show that the front bedroom plaster was skimmed on 14 February 2024. The operative notes from the appointments state that it had been agreed to strip wallpaper affected in the rear bedroom, plaster top to bottom, that there were 2 rooms still to plaster, and once finished this would be painted in a colour of the resident’s choice. They also noted that a window was loose in the kitchen which had previously been ordered.
  10. The landlord arranged a property MOT on 26 February 2024. The landlord’s records following the inspection note that work was needed to overhaul the kitchen window and reskim a wall around a chimney breast, paint the front bedroom and hack off and replaster the second bedroom, and repoint around a window externally and seal. It was waiting on CCTV for the repair to the soil pipe.
  11. On the same day, pest control attended and identified some droppings under the kitchen kickboards and no holes but evidence of entry. The resident advised that the property next door previously had mice issues and she had only experienced mice in her property since construction work began next door. The operative did not identify any obvious ingress points and offered to place bait, however, the resident declined due to concerns about dead rodents and maggots. Pest control passed the matter back to the landlord and recommended works to board the airing cupboard at the resident’s request, block any holes around the sink waste pipe, and remove a box section in a bedroom to check for ingress points.
  12. Following contact from the Ombudsman, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 5 March 2024. It acknowledged failures in its handling of her escalation request and also that it had not completed the works when agreed. While some works were completed on 6 November 2023, work to the walls and downpipe were outstanding. It had attended to reboard and skim the walls in January 2024 and a supervisor had attended on 26 February 2024 to gain an accurate scope of works. These had begun and operatives would return on 9 March 2024 to complete works. It apologised for the added delays and inconvenience and offered £1,200 compensation to account for its complaint handling failures, customer effort, delays, and distress and inconvenience.
  13. Following contact from the Ombudsman, asking it to address the pest control issues, the landlord issued a revised stage 2 complaint response on 25 March 2024. It noted that despite arranging for its pest control team to attend, recommendations were only provided on 26 February 2024 where it identified that the pest issue could relate to construction works nearby. It confirmed that operatives would attend on 9 April 2024 to assess and block access points in the bedroom and its pest control team would attend at the end of April to complete proofing works. It apologised that it failed to respond to this aspect of her complaint in its initial stage 2 complaint response and increased its offer of compensation for its complaint handling and delays, bringing the total offer to £1,400.
  14. The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she was dissatisfied that the landlord had arranged to attend on 9 April 2024 when it had previously agreed to complete works at weekends due to her work commitments. She added that the landlord seemed to believe that all work had been completed when this was not the case and was dissatisfied that the issues had been ongoing for so long.
  15. The resident has advised that pest control completed some work in her kitchen on 5 April 2024. Works to paint plastered areas, fix the soil pipe and cement this in were completed on 6 April 2024. On 9 April 2024, the pest control company reported not being able to access the property. The resident’s kitchen window was re-glazed and overhauled on 12 April 2024. There was a further no access pest control appointment recorded on 15 April 2024. The resident advised the Ombudsman that an appointment was missed by operatives on 19 April 2024 for her airing cupboard, and a further appointment for pest control was booked for 10 May 2024 to carry out the outstanding prevention works. 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In her communication, the resident has advised that she feels the issues reported had impacted her physical and mental health. Whilst the Ombudsman is able to assess the service the landlord has provided, we cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
  2. The resident has said that the repair issues were initially reported prior to August 2021. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.
  3. In view of the time periods involved in this case, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to October 2022. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, but the assessment is focused on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the formal complaint made in October 2023.
  4. The resident has advised the Ombudsman that she remains dissatisfied with the quality of work undertaken on 10 May 2024 in relation to the pest proofing works. As this did not form part of the complaint under consideration, this is not something that the Ombudsman can adjudicate on at this stage. This is because the landlord needs to be given the opportunity to respond to the resident’s concerns through its formal complaints process before the Ombudsman can determine whether its response was reasonable. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to contact the resident in relation to her concerns.

Outstanding repairs at the property

  1. In this case, it is not disputed that there were delays in completing works to the resident’s property, and additional delays in completing work following an inspection in October 2023. The landlord has acknowledged failings in its handling of the repairs, taken steps to resolve the issues and offered £950 compensation for the distress and inconvenience, customer effort and delays.
  2. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by it put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  3. As part of this investigation, the landlord was asked to provide records related to the resident’s complaint, including repair logs, communication logs, and any other relevant information. The Ombudsman has not been provided with clear repair logs detailing the nature of the works required at the property prior to the resident’s complaint on 2 October 2023. It is however evident from the communication logs provided that the resident was pursuing repairs to the property in October 2022, noting that a surveyor had made a list of works in August 2022 that remained outstanding. She has indicated that these related to the same issues of wet walls in her property.
  4. The resident’s communication with the landlord in October 2022 indicates that work was done to clear the guttering but it remains unclear as to whether other works were undertaken or what these works consisted of. It is, however, evident that she pursued concerns in September 2023 that she had experienced difficulty getting the contractors to complete work, that there had been several missed appointments and that she did not get paid if she did not go to work as she worked in a school. She noted at this stage that wet patches had appeared on her internal bedroom wall. She then needed to spend additional time and trouble pursuing her concerns on 18 September 2023 due to a lack of response, which was likely to cause inconvenience.
  5. The landlord acted reasonably in this case by acknowledging that the resident had been pursuing repairs for over 6 months at the time of her complaint and admitting that it should have completed repairs much sooner, noting that it had inspected the issues multiple times but failed to arrange for works to take place. It acted reasonably in response to her formal complaint on 2 October 2023 by arranging an inspection of the property on 12 October 2023 and compiling a list of works. It is understandable that the resident lacked confidence in the process given that she said a list of works had already been compiled over a year earlier.
  6. While some repairs to ease and adjust windows and her door, and install a handrail, were completed on 6 November 2023 as advised, it is evident that work to the plastering, to replace the glass in the kitchen window, and repair the soil pipe, were not fully completed until 6 and 12 April 2024 respectively, approximately 5 months later. The resident needed to spend additional time and trouble pursuing her concerns due to the issues not being fully resolved.
  7. There was a period of poor communication and a lack of oversight regarding the repairs during this period. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that it did not complete the repairs as agreed and did not communicate with any reassurance on how the issues would be resolved. It acted reasonably by apologising for the added distress and inconvenience caused. Despite advising the resident that the remainder of the works would be completed on 9 March 2024 within its response, it is evident that this was not the case, and the repairs were not fully completed until 12 April 2024, a month later. The Ombudsman notes that part of the delay was somewhat outside of the landlord’s control as the resident was only able to be available for appointments on Fridays or at weekends due to her work commitments.
  8. Overall, the Ombudsman has found service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property. The landlord acted fairly by apologising to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused throughout its complaints process as a result of the delays and poor communication. However, it failed to learn from the complaint or fully put things right by completing the work as agreed on 9 March 2024 or demonstrating that it had communicated effectively with the resident following its stage 2 complaint response on 5 March 2024.
  9. It is also of concern that despite works required to replaster as a result of wet internal facing walls, no clear diagnosis of the issue has been provided to either the resident or the Ombudsman. As such, it remains unclear as to how the landlord established that the works to replaster the areas would be successful in resolving the issues long term and the damp walls would not return. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to complete a further inspection in 3 months time to ensure that the issues have been fully resolved given the length of time this has been ongoing.
  10. Despite the additional failings identified, the landlord’s offer of £950 compensation for this aspect of the complaint is considered proportionate in view of the impact on the resident, including the additional inconvenience caused. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, amounts in this range are considered proportionate where there were failures which had a significant impact on the resident. An order has been made below for the landlord to apologise for the additional identified failings.

Pest control issues

  1. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the resident had raised any specific concerns about pests impacting her home or the communal area prior to the complaint on 2 October 2023. It is, however, noted that she had reported that this was an ongoing issue, and the evidence shows that the landlord had taken steps to address reported rats affecting the bin store area in May 2022.
  2. Following the resident’s report in her complaint on 2 October 2023, the landlord acted reasonably by arranging a pest control appointment. However, while the landlord advised within its stage 1 complaint response that the appointment went ahead on 19 October 2023, further visits would be needed, and that it would monitor this closely, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence to confirm what was found on the visit or what follow-on actions were required.
  3. The landlord has provided evidence that pest control visited again on 22 November 2023, however, there is nothing to show that the resident was made aware of the appointment or that the landlord took into account that she was unavailable during weekdays due to work commitments. The evidence shows that she had advised the pest control operative over the phone that she did not know that the appointment was happening but that the issue was mainly to the front garden. No work was undertaken as the officer had treated the garden during a visit to a neighbouring property, however, it remains unclear as to when this was done.
  4. There is no further evidence that this was “monitored closely” by the landlord. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered the wider problem and confirmed the actions it had taken in relation to pests in communal areas within its subsequent communication and responses to the resident.
  5. The resident reported pest activity within her property on 26 January 2024. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that she had reported pests within her property at an earlier date or that this had been an issue at the time of her initial complaint. The landlord has addressed the internal issues within its final complaint response to the resident, so the Ombudsman has considered its handling of these issues.
  6. Following her request that the matter was treated urgently on 26 January 2024, and her further report of a dead rat on her external step on 3 February 2024, there is no evidence that any action was taken to arrange a visit until 26 February 2024. Given the hazards that can be linked to issues such as pests, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have arranged to attend the property sooner.
  7. It was reasonable for the operative to offer to place bait on the visit given the identification of pests, although it is noted that the resident had declined this. While it was reasonable for proofing works to be raised, it is of concern that no other investigation into the wider issues occurred, such as the property above the resident’s, the neighbouring property or the external areas.
  8. Overall, the landlord was not proactive in its handling of the matter and while appointments were arranged following its final response to address the issues, it failed to consider the resident’s availability which she had made it aware of on multiple occasions. This led to 2 unnecessary no access appointments on 9 and 15 April 2024 and a delay in addressing the issues. While the resident advised that the appointment went ahead on 10 May 2024, it is noted that she remains concerned with the quality of work undertaken. 
  9. The Ombudsman has found service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the pest control issues at the property. There was a lack of communication from the landlord regarding the steps it was taking to resolve issues within the communal area and a lack of transparency regarding its understanding of the pest issue. In addition, there were delays which were somewhat addressed by the landlord within its revised response to the resident on 25 March 2024 but then additional, preventable, delays in completing work as agreed within its response following the complaint.
  10. Overall, the landlord’s additional offer of £100 (awarded within the delay aspect of its compensation offer added within its revised complaint response) is not considered proportionate in view of the identified failings. An order has been made below for the landlord to pay additional compensation to the resident given the distress, inconvenience and time and trouble caused by the failings.

The resident’s complaint

  1. The resident asked that a complaint was raised on 2 October 2023 and the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 20 October 2023. This was within its overall expected timescale of 15 working days to acknowledge and respond to stage 1 complaints in line with its policy. The landlord has acknowledged that the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 29 October 2023, and that while it had initially asked for confirmation and did not receive a response, it should have escalated the complaint at the time.
  2. The Ombudsman has seen evidence that the resident did respond to the landlord’s email on 30 October 2023, however, it is not disputed that the complaint should have been escalated at the time regardless. The resident spent additional time and trouble seeking support from the Ombudsman in pursuing her complaint and the Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 18 and 27 February 2024 asking it to respond at stage 2. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 5 March 2024, which was significantly outside of its 20-working day timescale for responding to stage 2 complaints.
  3. The landlord acted reasonably by apologising for its complaint handling failures and offering £250 compensation to the resident. It also demonstrated that it had taken points of learning from the complaint by confirming that it would be looking into how it could amend its customer portal to allow escalation requests and copy in managers so that action is taken and requests are not missed. This was reasonable in order to prevent similar failings in the future.
  4. It is noted that the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns regarding pests in its initial stage 2 complaint response on 5 March 2024, and following contact from the Ombudsman on 2 occasions, it issued an amended response to include this aspect on 25 March 2024. It acted reasonably by acknowledging that it had failed to address this aspect initially and offered an additional £100 compensation in view of its complaint handling failures. This was reasonable to account for the failing and additional inconvenience to the resident.
  5. In view of the above, the Ombudsman has found reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. The compensation offered to put right its failings is considered proportionate in view of the impact on the resident and it took reasonable steps to revise its offer and issue an amended complaint response when it became apparent that not all of the complaint aspects had been addressed.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of pest control issues affecting the property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaint, prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified within the report.
  2. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to pay the resident £1,250 comprised of:
    1. £950 as previously offered in relation to its handling of the repairs to the property if this has not yet been paid.
    2. £300 in recognition of the delay and poor communication regarding the pest control issues. This includes the previous offer of £100 if this has not yet been paid.
  3. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to contact the resident to establish what works, if any, remain outstanding. It should arrange an inspection and write to the resident setting out a schedule of works with expected completion timescales where repairs are found to be needed. 
  4. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman within the specified timescales.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident £350 as previously offered for its complaint handling failings, if it has not already done so, as the Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress was made on the basis that this was paid.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident and updates its records to show her availability for appointments to inform future repairs and avoid unnecessary “no access” visits. 
  3. It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident regarding her ongoing concerns related to workmanship issues in relation to pest proofing repairs and takes steps to address her concerns. If the resident remains dissatisfied with its handling of her ongoing concerns, the landlord should investigate these under its formal complaints process.
  4. It is recommended that the landlord commits to post-inspecting the property within 3 months, specifically with reference to the wet internal walls, to ensure the issues have been resolved.
  5. It is recommended that the landlord considers reimbursing the resident for her increased energy usage for the period the repairs to the property were outstanding as previously offered. The resident will likely need to provide evidence of her increased energy usage to the landlord for it to consider this. 
  6. It is recommended that the landlord carries out training for complaint handlers on the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, if it has not already done so, and ensures that complaint responses adequately consider events in the 12 months leading to the complaint.
  7. The landlord is to confirm its intentions in relation to the above recommendations within 4 weeks.