Hyde Housing Association Limited (202407518)

Background

The resident lives in a 3-bedroom house with her 5 children. When she moved in, 4 of the children were under 16. She has health conditions and 4 of her children are autistic. She previously lived in a 3-bedroom house with the same landlord, but was given a priority move to her current property. The resident raised concerns about overcrowding in her current property, that the hot water system was inadequate and ASB. She was unhappy with the landlord’s response to these issues. She said the landlord had managed her concerns unfairly and she believed this was due to her race.

What the complaint is about

1. The resident’s concerns that the landlord was discriminating against her due to her race.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. overcrowding concerns
   2. reports about the inadequate hot water cylinder
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s
   1. ASB reports
   2. complaint

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s racial discrimination is outside our jurisdiction
   2. no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s overcrowding concerns
   3. reasonable redress by the landlord in response to the resident’s reports about the inadequate hot water cylinder
   4. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s ASB reports
   5. reasonable redress by the landlord’s complaint handling

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

Summary of reasons

Racial discrimination

5. The resident has raised this as a complaint issue which has occurred since the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence the resident raised her complaint about her concerns that the landlord was racially discriminating against her. Therefore, we have no power to investigate her concerns regarding racial discrimination. She should complain directly to her landlord.

Overcrowding

6. The landlord followed its policy and procedures, and used the complaint process to put it right for the resident.

Hot water cylinder

7. The landlord recognised its failings and put things right by investigating her concerns and arranging the right repairs. The compensation offered was in line with our remedies guidance.

ASB reports

8. The landlord failed to follow its ASB Policy and Procedure and provide a resident-focused response. It did not demonstrate learning from earlier failings resulting in prolonged distress and inconvenience for the resident.

Complaint handling

9. The landlord recognised its failings and offered suitable redress to put things right. The compensation offered is in line with our remedies guidance.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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.

10. We recognise the resident’s concerns about feeling racially discriminated against and the impact this may have had. We appreciate how significant this matter is. However, as it was not raised with the landlord during her complaints, we are unable to investigate.

11. When the resident first raised concerns about overcrowding at stage 1, it was not appropriate that the landlord failed to address this in its response. This was a missed opportunity to provide support and put things right early. This caused frustration and inconvenience for the resident, who had to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
12. At stage 2, it was fair for the landlord to explain its understanding of the circumstances that led to the offer of the current property.
13. The landlord took a suitable approach that followed its Priority Move Procedure. It completed a priority move application on 24 November 2022. This highlighted the risks to the family, due to the threat to the resident’s son’s life at the previous address. The application said the resident and her family were staying in temporary accommodation which was not adequate for their needs. The application confirmed the landlord could make a like-for-like offer as the family were previously in a 3-bedroom house. In July 2023, the resident’s housing application for the current property noted she had 5 children. This meant the property would be overcrowded, but it also recorded the urgency of the situation.
14. In its stage 2 response, the landlord referred to its Allocations and Lettings Policy. This states it will not knowingly let a property, where doing so would lead to overcrowding at the start of the tenancy. However, it also allows exceptions for urgent cases under its Priority Move Procedure.
15. In this case, the landlord evidenced its decision and followed both its Priority Move Procedure and Allocations and Lettings Policy. The procedure allowed the resident to bid on the property, and the urgency of the situation allowed the landlord to apply an exception under its policy. While we understand the resident’s distress and frustration about the overcrowding, the actions of the landlord were proportionate to ensure the family’s safety and stability.
16. Once the landlord became aware of the impact the overcrowding was having on the resident and her family, it was reasonable that it provided signposting and advice at stage 2. A priority move for cases of overcrowding is not supported by its Priority Moves Procedure. However, the options it provided gave the resident practical routes to address her concerns which were in line with its Allocations and Lettings Policy. This showed that while the landlord had followed its procedure for the initial move, it offered ways to help the resident find a longer-term solution.
17. While there was a missed opportunity by the landlord at stage 1, it did address the issue at stage 2.

18. The resident first reported issues with her hot water on 22 August 2023. She said the landlord told her the system was only sufficient for a maximum of 4 people, but her household had 6. At that time, the landlords Repairs Procedure classed this as an “anytime repair” to attend within 20 working days. The landlord made internal queries which suggested it would send an engineer. We have not seen any evidence it booked a repair around this time. The resident made further reports, so it is likely the landlord failed to communicate or book an appointment. This lack of action would have caused frustration and inconvenience for the resident.
19. When the resident made her stage 1 complaint, it was fair that the landlord arranged a survey to see if the system was efficient for the property. This showed the landlord acknowledged her concerns, was committed to investigate and put things right.
20. The surveyor attended as agreed on 1 December 2023. There was a faulty back up immersion booster switch which required follow on, but there was no suggestion that the system was inadequate.
21. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its delay in completing the follow-on work in its stage 2 response. This included the replacement boost button for the hot water system. To put it right it confirmed the date it would complete the follow–on and offered compensation for the delay. It also offered compensation for distress and inconvenience at stage 2, but it is unclear what this was in relation to. As there were failings in the repair delays and the ASB reports it is fair to say that £75 of this related to the distress and inconvenience caused by the repair delays. The compensation offers were in line with its Compensation Policy.
22. The landlord’s response was fair as it investigated her concerns and explained that it met its obligations as the system was the correct for the property size. It acknowledged the delays and put things right by arranging the boost button to provide further help with the hot water supply. The landlord was aware of the resident’s overcrowding concerns, and provided advice as part of this issue previously explained in this report.

What we didn’t investigate

23. The resident told us that the smell of cannabis entering her home affected her and her family’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for an injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for the distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

24. When the resident reported the smell of cannabis entering her home as part of her stage 1 complaint, the landlord took a suitable approach that followed policy by logging this as an ASB case. The landlord also attempted to call the resident, but when there was no answer, it left a voicemail and sent a text message. This was in line with its ASB Procedure which says drug use is “Category B ASB” and it will respond within 5 working days.
25. When the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2, it was appropriate that the landlord apologised for the lack of contact. It explained that after speaking to the resident on 22 December 2023, it had referred the matter to the ASB Manager for follow-up.
26. It is reasonable to conclude it offered £75 at stage 2 for distress and inconvenience caused by the ASB failings. This showed the resident it took her concerns seriously, acknowledged the inconvenience caused and was committed to help address her concerns regarding the cannabis smell.
27. However, the resident chased the landlord on 17 January 2024 due to the lack of contact. While it was correct for the ASB Team to call her back the following day, the commitment at stage 2 was for the landlord to contact her. This caused unnecessary inconvenience and frustration for the resident.
28. In its formal acknowledgement of the ASB case on 19 January 2024, it was reasonable for the landlord to outline the actions needed and agreed to review the case on 5 February 2024. Although the landlord’s acknowledgment showed it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously, it didn’t show that it understood the impact it was having. The resident explained that the cannabis smell was worsening her medical conditions and preventing some of the children from sleeping in their bedrooms due to its strength.
29. The landlord’s ASB Policy says it will take a resident-focused approach to tackling ASB, and its ASB Procedure requires a risk assessment to identify what support it can give. Given the resident’s concerns about her health and the impact on her children, completing a risk assessment would have helped the landlord determine suitable support. There is no evidence it did this, which was not appropriate. The absence of a risk assessment meant the landlord did not identify or respond to the resident’s vulnerabilities, leaving her without tailored support or safeguarding measures. This contributed to her ongoing distress, and prolonged the time the resident was affected by the issue.
30. The resident was unsure if the cannabis smell was coming from her neighbour, she was an end terrace house, and a contractor had noticed the smell in the loft. However, there is no evidence the landlord followed this up. There were several options the landlord could have taken to investigate further, such a visit to the property or issuing warning letters. By failing to thoroughly investigate the issue it was unable to take action to resolve the matter promptly which added to the resident’s distress.
31. The resident continued to chase the landlord about the case in February 2024. The evidence shows the landlord attempted to call her but could not get through. The ASB Policy says it will close a case if the victim has not engaged within the previous 4-6 weeks. The landlord attempted contact via phone and email 3 times between February 2024 and April 2024. When it received no further contact from the resident it closed the case on 16 April 2024. This was in line with its policy.
32. The resident reported the issue again in June and July 2024, and the landlord logged a new case. The landlord contacted her and sent an acknowledgement letter in line with its policy. However, due to a change in the landlord’s case management system in November 2024, the landlord missed the review date. While technology issues can occur, landlords should have contingency measures to ensure it does not lose case details. This caused further delay in the resident receiving help and caused frustration that the issue was not being addressed.
33. In January 2025, the landlord told the resident it would send warning letters to the surrounding properties. However, the resident has told us she continues to experience the smell. While it is positive that the landlord logged a new case and took further action, it did not demonstrate learning from its previous handling of the matter. This caused prolonged distress for the resident.
34. The landlord has acknowledged some failings, offered redress, and made some attempt to put things right, but it did not go far enough. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £300 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused which is in line with our remedies guidance.

35. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the April 2024 edition. Our findings are:
36. The landlord has a published Complaints Policy that complies with the Code in respect of timescales.
37. At stage 1, the landlord acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days. It responded within 10 working days. This was in line with its policy timescales.
38. At stage 2, the landlord took 15 working days to acknowledge her request, which was 10 working days over its policy timescales. It replied within 17 working days of acknowledging the escalation, which was within its policy timescales of 20 working days.
39. At stage 2, the landlord acknowledged its delay and offered reasonable redress for her patience during the complaint process.

Learning

40. When the resident reported concerns regarding the hot water it was positive the landlord investigated this and identified a repair that may help her situation.
41. The landlord missed an opportunity to address the resident’s overcrowding complaint at stage 1. A landlord’s complaint handling should aim to resolve issues quickly, effectively and fairly.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

42. The landlord should complete and record risk assessments when residents report ASB. This would evidence its understanding of the impact the situation has had on the resident and help inform support or its next steps.

Communication

43. The landlord failed to show empathy with the impact the ASB was having on the resident in its responses. Providing empathetic communication helps maintain trust and demonstrates a resident focused approach.