Hyde Housing Association Limited (202341134)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 3-bed house with her 3 children. In August 2023 she reported that a skylight in her bedroom ceiling was leaking and causing damage to her belongings. The resident made a formal complaint in December 2023 as the landlord had not repaired the leak. It is not clear when the landlord completed the external repairs or if it has carried out internal repairs.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to a leaking skylight.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling. 

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to a leaking skylight.
   2.               There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord failed to adhere to the timescales in its repair policy. It is not clear it completed the repairs due to inadequate repair records. However, it took at least 8 months to repair the leaking skylight and this was unreasonable.
6. The resident experienced distress and inconvenience due to the ongoing leak into her bedroom and the damage caused to the flooring and her bed. The landlord’s ineffective communication with the resident caused her to invest unnecessary time and trouble in chasing for updates.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

7. The resident says she first reported that the skylight in her bedroom was leaking in August 2023. The landlord does not refute this but has not provided evidence of the resident’s initial repair report.
8. The repair records show the landlord did not inspect the leak until November 2023. That it took it 3 months to carry out an inspection was unreasonable.
9. In its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses the landlord provided appointments to erect the scaffolding and complete the external and internal repairs. However, it failed to attend on the dates given. The landlord failed to tell the resident that it would not be attending. This caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience as she had taken leave from work to provide access.
10. The landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident about the repair. As a result she had to invest avoidable time and trouble chasing for updates.
11. In March 2024 the resident reported that the repairs had not been completed and the leak had damaged her bed and bedroom flooring.
12. The landlord has not addressed the resident’s concerns about damage to her belongings. It would have been reasonable for it to do so and to signpost her to make a claim on her own insurance policy, or on the landlord’s insurance policy if she did not have one.
13. The resident also reported that the scaffolding had been in place for months and as a result she was unable to open her windows. The landlord failed to respond to this concern.
14. In April 2024 the resident reported that offenders had climbed up the scaffolding to try and break into the property. She raised concerns for her family’s safety and asked the landlord to remove the scaffolding. The landlord did not respond to this report. It would have been reasonable for it to express empathy and attempt to address her security concerns.
15. It is not clear when the landlord repaired the skylight as the evidence provided contains several different dates. Internal landlord communication indicates it completed the repairs on 19 April 2024 and 8 May 2024. The repair log provided indicates it completed the work on 26 July 2024. It is also unclear when the landlord removed the scaffolding.
16. The landlord’s repair policy states it will complete routine repairs within 20 working days. It failed to adhere to this timescale.
17. After the resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman, the landlord made appointments to complete internal replastering on 8 August 2024 and painting on 15 September 2024. We have not seen evidence that it completed these works.
18. In its final complaint response the landlord offered the resident £500 compensation for the delays and the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused. While this offer was reasonable, its failings continued for a further 5 months. We have therefore found maladministration in its handling of the repairs.
19. In addition to the £500 it offered at stage 2 we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £250 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble. This is proportionate to the detriment experienced by the resident.

20. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint within the timeframes outlined in its complaint policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
21. The Code requires landlords to track any actions outlined in complaint responses through to completion. In both its stage 1 and stage 2 responses the landlord provided appointments for the repairs. However, it failed to attend and did not contact her to offer any explanation or reschedule the appointment. The landlord failed to meet the commitment it had made in its response, which was a departure from the Code.
22. Following the landlord’s stage 2 response, the resident asked it to raise several further complaints about the outstanding repair and associated issues. We have seen no evidence that it did so or that it acknowledged or responded to these complaints. She has chased several times for a response but has not received one.
23. The Code states landlord must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to. Where there is a valid reason, it should explain this clearly to the resident. In this case the landlord has not done so. It should therefore have responded to the complaints.
24. The landlord failed to resolve the issues of the resident’s complaint within its complaint process and did not respond several further complaints. We therefore find maladministration in its complaint handling.
25. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation in relation to its complaint handling. This is proportionate to the time and trouble she experienced because of its complaint handling failings.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. It is an obligation of membership of the Scheme for landlords to provide copies of any information requested by the Ombudsman that is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, relevant to the complaint. In this case we asked the landlord to provide a copy of the resident’s report of the repair issue, repair logs, and inspection reports.
27. The information provided by the landlord is inadequate. It has not provided full repair logs and has instead provided partial records. It did not provide evidence of the resident’s first report, nor did it provide any inspection reports.
28. The landlord’s records contained contradictory information about when external were completed. It has not provided evidence showing when it removed the scaffolding and completed internal repairs.

Communication

29. The landlord’s communication was ineffective. It did not keep the resident updated on the repairs and she had to chase for updates on several occasions.