Hyde Housing Association Limited (202415846)

Background

1. The resident complained about her landlord’s response to a number of issues, including reports of possible subsidence and repairs.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s reports of possible subsidence.
   2. Handling of repairs.
   3. Response to the resident’s concerns about the exterior decoration of the property.
   4. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of possible subsidence.
   2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of repairs.
   3. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the exterior decoration of the property.
   4. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

Response to the resident’s reports of possible subsidence

4. The landlord conducted a survey in line with its subsidence procedure. It raised a further specialist inspection as well as the follow on works identified.

Handling of repairs

5. The landlord did not carry out repairs in line with its policies and procedures. It acknowledged these failures in its complaint responses and offered an appropriate amount of compensation to the resident.

Response to the resident’s concerns about the exterior decoration of the property

6. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns and informed her these works would take place as part of an annual programme of works. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s repair policy.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord did not address all issues raised by the resident in its stage 1 response and there was a significant delay in providing its stage 2 response. However, the landlord recognised these failures and offered the resident compensation. The amount it offered was appropriate and proportionate to the impact of the delays.

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.

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.

8. The landlord’s subsidence procedure says that following a report of subsidence, a surveyor should attend at the earliest opportunity. The policy states the surveyor should assess whether a case should be handled as subsidence and complete the relevant form on the landlord system. They should record if cracks are visible, where they are located, if the width is even, and the approximate width at the widest point. It says if the surveyor can rule out subsidence, they should raise any responsive repairs as required and close the inspection.
9. It is unclear from the records when the resident first raised concerns regarding subsidence. However, we can see that the landlord raised a works order on 29 June 2024 for a surveyor to inspect the property. The surveyor attended on 16 July 2024. This was reasonable as it was in line with the timescales set out in the landlord’s repair policy. The surveyor’s report noted that cracks were present and where they were located. It said the cracks were not the width of a pound coin but that the resident said they were moving rapidly. The surveyor requested that a job be raised with a specialist to carry out a structural survey and monitor the cracks.
10. Following the resident’s stage 1 complaint, the surveyor contacted the specialist on 19 August 2024 to confirm if a job had been raised for the resident’s property. The specialist confirmed it had not. The surveyor then raised an order and confirmed this with the specialist on 9 September 2024. The specialist contacted the surveyor on 25 September 2024 to inform them they had contacted the resident to arrange an inspection. However, the resident had refused access for an inspection.
11. In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it stated it had asked the specialist to reattend. It said an inspection had been carried out on 19 November 2024 and the specialist had reported it did not believe subsidence was affecting the resident’s property. However, it did recommend that the landlord fill the cracks and redecorate the affected areas. This work was completed, and will be addressed in a subsequent section.
12. The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns about subsidence. A surveyor carried out an inspection within 12 working days. This inspection was appropriate and carried out in line with the landlord’s subsidence procedure. The surveyor raised follow on works in line with this procedure, as well as raising a specialist inspection. Although the inspection was delayed, the landlord’s surveyor was proactive in following it up. Were it not for the surveyor being proactive, the inspection might have been delayed further. The landlord should ensure that it is effectively managing its relationship with contractors and third parties to ensure residents are not impacted.
13. The landlord then followed the recommendations of the specialist’s report and carried out the relevant follow on works. We consider that the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of subsidence was appropriate.

14. The landlord’s repair policy says that emergency repairs should be attended within 4 hours to make safe within 24 hours. Routine repairs are categorised as any responsive repair that is not an emergency repair and should be completed within 20 working days.
15. Where a landlord admits failings, our role is to assess whether the resolution offered by the landlord put things right and remedied the complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. We also considers whether the landlord acted in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.

Skylight

16. It is unclear from available records when the resident first raised issues relating to the skylight. However, the landlord’s stage 1 response indicates that the resident did contact the landlord to raise these issues. Issues with the skylight include the resident being unable to open it to ventilate the property. The landlord’s stage 1 response refers to a work order that was raised on 24 May 2024 in relation to the skylight. This was cancelled due to the resident being unavailable. The stage 1 response states that the landlord was advised on 4 July 2024 that the resident would contact it in July when the resident returned home.
17. A surveyor from the landlord then attended on 16 July 2024 to carry out an inspection of the property, including the skylight. This inspection noted that there were issues with the fitting of the skylight and the plaster around it was damaged. The landlord’s repair records show that a work order was then raised on 17 July 2024 for operatives to investigate the issues with the skylight and for a plasterer to attend and address the plastering around the skylight. Contractors attended on 15 August 2024,which was within the landlord’s repairs policy timescales.
18. However, in her stage 1 complaint, dated 16 August 2024, the resident expressed dissatisfaction about the actions of the contractors. In relation to the skylight, the resident said a roofer attended but had only been told to inspect the skylight, despite the surveyor having already done so. The resident said the contractor took some pictures and left. The landlord’s records do not outline what action was taken or the outcome of any further inspection. Therefore it is difficult to determine whether its actions at the time were reasonable.
19. In its stage 1 response, dated 30 August 2024, the landlord noted the resident was unhappy with the skylight and wanted it to be replaced with the original style. In its stage 2 response, dated 26 November 2024, the landlord acknowledged the works remained outstanding. It informed the resident that an appointment had been raised for 11 December 2024 to complete these works. This included repairs to the skylight and the area around it and decoration of the affected areas.
20. While there were delays in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the skylight, the landlord apologised for the delays and offered compensation in recognition of the likely impact caused. The offer it made was fair and proportionate to the impact of those delays. We understand there were further delays due to the skylight needing to be replaced and this required scaffolding to be erected. The resident has confirmed that the works are now completed.

Cracks

21. The landlord’s repair records show that the resident reported cracks in her property on 6 April 2024. A work order was raised for a plasterer to attend and work was completed on the 17 April 2024. This was appropriate and in line with the timeframes set out in the landlord’s repair policy.
22. As noted above, it is unclear from available records when the resident raised further concerns about the repairs in her property. In their inspection of the property on 16 July 2024, the landlord’s surveyor noted there were cracks present in the property. A work order was raised on 17 July 2024 for decorative works to address the cracks identified.
23. The landlord arranged an appointment with the resident for 15 August 2024. This appointment was for a plasterer to address the cracks they had reported. However, on 15 August 2024, a contractor visited the resident and removed some of the wallpaper before explaining they were a plumber and unable to complete the job. A plasterer failed to attend on this date. This demonstrated the landlord’s failure to appropriately address the resident’s concerns.
24. The landlord acknowledged there had been  miscommunication relating to the plasterer during the complaint process. It said a maintenance team was instructed to attend, remove the wallpaper, fill in the cracks, and decorate. Landlord repair records show that this job was raised on 15 August 2024 and completed on 16 September 2024. The landlord also said it would monitor the cracks. This, in addition to the specialist inspection, was positive by the landlord in seeking to provide the resident with reassurance. However, the resident has since stated that she remains concerned about the cracks and monitoring has not taken place. It is recommended that the landlord provide its position on the ongoing monitoring of the cracks to the resident.

Summary

25. The landlord acknowledged its failures and delays relating to the skylight repairs and cracks in the home and it offered compensation. In its stage 2 response, it offered the resident total compensation of £500. This was broken down as £200 for the delays, £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused, and £100 for the resident’s efforts in pursuing the complaint.
26. The landlord’s offer of £500 was in line with our remedies guidance for failures which adversely affect a resident. This considers the impact of the delays to address the resident’s concerns. We understand the total amount was paid to the resident in November 2024. We therefore consider this to be reasonable redress.

27. Appendix 1 of the landlord’s repairs policy outlines responsibilities for various repairs. Exterior redecoration is clearly marked as the responsibility of the landlord. It is noted that these repairs are carried out as part of a stock investment programme or cyclical programme.
28. In its stage 2 response, the landlord noted that the resident had raised concerns about the condition of the exterior decoration of the property and that repairs to rectify this were outstanding. The landlord informed the resident that external decoration formed part of the annual programme, and that she would be contacted soon to confirm her availability. It said it aimed to have the decoration completed by March 2025.
29. The resident has since confirmed to us that this work has been completed. We consider that the landlord’s position that the external decoration was part of an annual programme was in line with its repairs policy. The landlord also provided the resident with an anticipated date for completion of these works. The landlord therefore responded appropriately.

30. The landlord’s complaint policy states that a stage 1 response should be issued within 10 working days following formal acknowledgement. It says a stage 2 response should be issued within 20 working days following formal acknowledgement. Both stage 1 and stage 2 complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days. The policy also states that where a response requires an extension or is likely to be delayed, it will explain this to residents and give a date for the response. These timescales are in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
31. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of the process was in line with the complaint handling policy timescales. However, it failed to address all of the issues raised. There were also significant delays between escalation to stage 2 and a stage 2 response being issued. This was a breach of the landlord’s complaint policy and the Code.
32. The landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged that the resident had escalated her complaint on 6 September 2024 but this had not been actioned until we intervened. It recognised that there had been delays and communication had been poor. It also accepted that the stage 1 response had not addressed all the issues raised by the resident. The landlord explained what actions it was taking to resolve the outstanding issues and outlined learning from this complaint.
33. The landlord made an increased offer of compensation in its stage 2 response. It recognised there had been complaint handling failures, including delays and failures to address all issues, and offered compensation of £150.
34. Although there were failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, it recognised these and provided explanations of what had gone wrong. It also offered the resident compensation in recognition of these failures. The offer it made was proportionate to the failures and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

35. There are some gaps in the records provided by the landlord around when issues were raised by the resident and when works were completed. It is important that landlords keep clear, accurate, and accessible records. This will help avoid any confusion and help the landlord to form clear timelines around when an issue has been raised and what actions have been taken to resolve them. The landlord should review our Spotlight report on knowledge and information management, “On The Record”, and consider its recommendations.

Communication

36. The resident had to contact the landlord on several occasions to follow up her complaint. There were also occasions when the landlord did not update the resident regarding repairs. The landlord should consider how it can be more proactive in communicating with residents and keeping them updated about the status of their repairs and complaints.