Hastoe Housing Association Limited (202015774)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015774

Hastoe Housing Association

28 March 2022

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:

a.     How the landlord handled repairs to the property.

b.     Whether an Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR) certificate was correctly issued in 2012.

Jurisdiction

2. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. After carefully considering all the evidence, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Whether an EICR certificate was correctly issued in 2012

3. The resident has requested a copy of the EICR certificate issued by the landlord in August 2012 and has stated that she is sceptical that a proper electric safety check was undertaken by the landlord at the time.
4. 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. As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
5. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme, which states that we will 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 six months of the matters arising.

Background and summary of events

Background

6. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a house.
7. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy categorises its repair types as “Emergency” (respond within 24 hours), “Urgent” (respond within ten days) and “Routine” (respond within 28 days). The policy does not define what the landlord considers to be an emergency repair.
8. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to provide a response at stage one within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage within 21 days of receiving the response. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a stage two response within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
9. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider making a payment “where services have not been delivered in accordance with our policies and the customer has suffered financial loss, distress or significant inconvenience as a result”.
10. The policy goes on to note that the landlord “will not consider making any compensation payments for disturbance arising from responsive repairs or improvements delivered in accordance with our policies and within reasonable timescales as it is often not possible to complete these works without some level of disturbance”.
11. The policy does not give any guidance on what level of redress should be considered for what particular type of service failure. However, it does state that any payments of over £500 require authorisation at director level.

Summary of events

12. The resident wrote to the landlord on 9 June 2020 about outstanding work to the bathroom. She noted that the landlord had agreed to fit a new bath, remove the shower, repair the floor, retile the wall and also to repair the water damage to the ceiling in the downstairs toilet. The resident stated that this work had been due to commence in December 2019 but remained outstanding. She also informed the landlord that there was now water damage to the fuse box.
13. On 19 August 2020 the local authority wrote to the landlord on the resident’s behalf. They explained that they had been contacted by the resident regarding outstanding bathroom repairs, that she first reported the issue in August 2019 and that the landlord had visited on six occasions to seal the bath. It further explained that the resident had stated that she would no longer allow visits unless it was to replace the bath and that she was concerned about water damage to the electrics in the property.
14. The landlord’s repair logs begin noting the need to replace the bath and complete other associated repairs in October 2019.
15. The landlord replied on 20 August 2020. It explained that it was currently operating a reduced service as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic and all non-emergency work had been put on hold. It informed the local authority that it had passed on their email to its maintenance team.
16. The landlord’s repair logs state that on 21 August 2020 it raised four emergency repairs and two urgent repairs relating to the bathroom and the ceiling in the downstairs toilet.
17. The local authority wrote to the landlord on 25 August 2020. They stated that they understood that a surveyor had visited the property and requested to be provided with a list of what work was authorised and when it would be carried out. The landlord replied on 10 September 2020 and provided the information.
18. On 15 October 2020 the local authority wrote to the landlord and stated that it had been informed by the resident that the work had yet to be carried out. The landlord replied on 22 October 2020 and explained that the work to the downstairs toilet ceiling was the only job that remained outstanding and that an appointment had been booked for 29 October 2020.
19. The local authority wrote to the landlord on 27 October 2020 and informed it that the resident had called them that morning about the progress of the work. They passed on the resident’s concerns that the underlying issue of a water leak had yet to be resolved and that she was informed by an operative during a visit on 15 October 2020 that the bath, tiles and flooring in the bathroom needed to be replaced before work to the downstairs toilet ceiling and the fuse box could go ahead. The local authority advised the landlord that they would consider taking formal action if the issue was not resolved.
20. The landlord replied on 27 October 2020. It explained that the resident had cancelled the 29 October 2020 appointment and that it was waiting for an update from its contractor. It stated that it would update the local authority once the update had been given.
21. The local authority acknowledged the landlord’s email on 29 October 2020 and stated that it had been informed by the resident that an appointment had been arranged for 6 November 2020 to replace the bath, flooring and tiles in the bathroom.
22. On 21 December 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord and requested to raise a formal complaint. She described the elements of the complaint as:

a.     The delays in completing the work to the bathroom.

b.     She had bought a new cooker and paid for an electrician to install it. However, due to the condition of the electrics in the property it could not be installed.

c.      She informed the contractor, who raised an urgent repair for 18 December 2020. However, the contractor failed to attend. It wasn’t until the resident called the contractor that she was informed that parts had been ordered and the work could not go ahead until they arrived.

d.     The resident asked to speak to a supervisor, who called her back and was very rude and spoke over her when she tried to explain the issues she was experiencing with the electrics.

e.     She had been left without a working cooker for five days and although the appointment had been rebooked for 23 December 2020, this would only go ahead if the parts had arrived.

23. The resident also requested for the entire fuse box to be replaced rather than the old one repaired, and asked for a copy of the electrical safety certificate.
24. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 23 December 2020 and sent a stage one complaint response on 30 December 2020. The landlord noted that the resident had often reported problems in the bathroom since January 2013 and accepted that there had been overdue issues during that time. It apologised for the failings of both it and its contractor to resolve the issues in a timely manner.
25. It then explained that a work order had been raised to renew the fuse box and to redecorate the downstairs bathroom. The landlord then offered the resident £300 compensation, which it broke down as £200 for the ongoing issues of leaks in the bathroom and £100 for its failure to effectively deal with the electrical issues in the property.
26. The resident wrote to the landlord on 7 January 2021 and accepted its compensation offer. She also noted that its communication had improved after it had appointed a single point of contact.
27. The resident wrote to the landlord again on 17 February 2021 to confirm that the outstanding work had been completed and to enquire as to when the compensation would be paid. The landlord replied and informed her that it would chase up the payment.
28. On 20 February 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord to inform it that she had yet to receive the compensation and also had no response to her request to receive the electrical safety certificate. The landlord informed the resident on 24 February 2021 that it had passed on her request to the appropriate department.
29. The resident wrote to the landlord on 10 March 2021 and informed it that she no longer wanted to accept its compensation offer due to the length of time it was taking for it to be issued, and that she was considering her next steps.
30. The resident called this Service on 11 March 2021 and stated her dissatisfaction with how her complaint had been handled by the landlord. Following further correspondence, this Service advised the resident to request an escalation of the complaint.
31. The resident wrote to the landlord on 18 March 2021 and requested to escalate the complaint on the grounds that the resolution agreed at stage one had not been carried out.
32. The resident wrote to the landlord again on 6 April 2021 and requested an update on her request. The landlord replied and apologised for the delay. It explained that due to the staff member she had emailed being on leave, it had yet to be escalated and that the request would be treated as a priority on their return to work. The resident requested a further update from the landlord on the status of the escalation request on 20 April 2021.
33. The landlord wrote to the resident on 25 May 2021 and asked what her outstanding issues and desired outcome to the complaint were. The resident explained that she was unhappy that she had not received a copy of the electrical safety certificate and as a result was concerned with the safety of the electrics in the property.
34. The stage two complaint response was sent to the resident on 28 May 2021. The landlord first confirmed that the outstanding work raised as part of the stage one response had been completed and provided a copy of the electrical certificate.
35. The landlord then informed the resident that it had reviewed its compensation offer made at stage one and had increased it to £550. It broke this down as £400 for the delays in completing the work, £100 for not effectively dealing with the electrical issue and £50 for its failure to pay the compensation at stage one.
36. During a telephone conversation with this Service on 4 November 2021, the resident described the outstanding issues of the case as she was unhappy with how the landlord had responded to her concerns about that water leaks and the fuse box. The resident then explained that her desired outcome to the complaint would be for the landlord to provide a copy of the 2012 electric safety certificate, to apologise to her and to increase the amount of compensation it had offered,

Assessment and findings

How the landlord handled repairs to the property

37. In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged that it had not properly followed its repairs policy in responding to water leaks from the bathroom and to the resident’s concerns as to the condition of the fuse box. The landlord apologised, raised work orders to complete all outstanding work and awarded £550 compensation for its service failures.
38. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord 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 the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
39. The landlord had acted fairly in ultimately acknowledging its mistakes and delays. It looked to learn from its errors by assigning a single point of contact, which the resident stated had improved the communication while the remaining work was completed.
40. It took from at least October 2019 until February 2021 to complete the repairs to the bath, which was the source of the water leak, and the water damage that the outstanding repair had caused. This was despite repeated contact from the resident and from the local authority. The landlord also accepted that it had not properly responded to the resident’s concerns relating to the fuse box. Furthermore despite acknowledging the earlier delays, the landlord failed to learn from the complaint in that it then delayed in arranging the compensation and escalated complaint.
41. Therefore, although the landlord has acknowledged the areas where its service was inadequate, the level of compensation offered is not sufficient.

Determination (decision)

42. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in how the landlord handled repairs to the property.

Orders

43. As a result of the determination above, the landlord has been ordered to, within 4 weeks:

1. Pay the resident a further £350 to acknowledge the inconvenience caused in the handling of the repairs.
2. Pay the resident £50 to acknowledge the inconvenience of the delay in escalating the formal complaint. This is to correspond with the £50 already offered for the delayed compensation.

44. This order to pay a further £400 is in addition to the £550 already offered during the complaint procedure.