Hyde Housing Association Limited (201910669)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201910669

Hyde Housing Association Limited

13 May 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

The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs following issues of water ingress and problems with the front door. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been considered.

Background and summary of events

The property is a four bedroom terraced house. The resident has a secure tenancy.
In April 2019 repairs issues were identified in the property relating to poorly fitted windows and the front door and water ingress. On 11 October 2019 the resident complained to the landlord about the water ingress and repairs needed in her house and the amount of time it was taking for it to be fixed.
On 21 November 2019 the landlord wrote the resident acknowledging her first stage complaint about a lack of response to a complaint about outstanding repairs. The landlord stated that it aimed to respond on or before 19 December 2019.
On 7 January 2020 the landlord wrote the resident to give an update on her complaint. It stated that the complaint had been delayed because the complaint handler was away from the office. It stated that it hoped to give a full reply by 21 January 2019 (sic).
On 8 January 2020 the landlord sent the resident a schedule of works, from 9 January 2020 to 28 January 2020.
On 21 January 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident to give her an update on her complaint. It stated that its response was delayed as works were in progress and her complaint would remain open until they were completed. It stated that the final appointment was in February and a post inspection survey would be completed after that.
On 27 March 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident giving her an update on her complaint. It stated that, due to the pandemic, repairs were being restricted to emergencies and it would not be able to provide a response until it was able to access the property. It stated its revised date for resolution was 28 April 2020.
On 11 May 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident giving her an update on her complaint. It stated that due to the pandemic repairs were being restricted to emergencies and it would not be able to provide a response until it was able to access the property. It stated its revised date for resolution was 2 June 2020.
On 15 May 2020 the landlord undertook a site visit and advised the resident that it proposed to resolve the issue by water testing the windows and, if necessary, replacing them and replastering. It would include a new door if this was warranted. It identified some brick work was needed. It concluded that no work was needed on the guttering.
On 22 May 2020 the resident raised concerns with the landlord, including about a new door being needed, guttering needed to be undertaken and brickwork needing completion.
On 2 June 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident about her complaint about damage caused by contractors, water ingress through windows, a broken door, poor and incomplete work by the contractor, rude service by the contractor and water leaking through a gutter. The landlord stated that it was hoping to get a response to her by 2 June 2020 (sic). It noted that due to “poor work” by a contractor it had sent out a surveyor and was arranging for a separate company to replace the windows and doors and complete the brickwork and plastering. It stated that it hoped to give a fully reply by 17 June 2020.
In early June the landlord agreed internally that a new door and windows would be installed.
On 3 June 2020 the landlord paid the resident £360 compensation for poor work done by the first set of contractors, this included compensation for the cost of running a dehumidifier.
On 22 June 2020 the landlord attended the property and confirmed it would dry line the walls but not decorate them and agreed an air brick installation. It surveyed works to the bathroom and arrangements were made for an electrician to undertake works.
On 9 July 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident advising her that there was a delay in a response to her complaint about damage caused by contractors, water ingress through windows, a broken door, poor and incomplete work by the contractor, rude service by the contractor and water leaking through a gutter. It stated that it was hoping to give a response by 9 July 2020 but there was a delay. It noted that contractors were currently doing brick work and windows were being arranged but there was a delay. It stated that it hoped to give a fully reply by 24 July 2020.
By mid July the drylining was completed. The landlord recorded that it had removed a redundant fan and installed a passive airbrick in a shower room.
On 23 July 2020 the resident told the landlord that she was not happy to wait for windows. She advised the landlord that she was getting quotes for windows and would proceed if the landlord did not act. She advised the landlord that the airbrick had still not been done.
There was a number of internal correspondence exchanges at the landlord in July and August regarding progressing the window installation.
On 18 August 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident about her complaint. The landlord stated that it had hoped to give her a fully reply by 14 August 2020 but needed more time.
On 27 August 2020 the landlord indicated that it wanted to upgrade the doors and windows as part of the resolution of the complaint.
On 1 September 2020 the landlord advised the resident that it had agreed to cover the cost of the front door upgrade as part of its compensation It advised her that manufacture time for windows was normally eight to ten weeks.
On 9 September 2020 the resident emailed pictures of the shower room to the landlord.
On 28 September the landlord advised the resident that the window and doors would not be in stock until November 2020.
On 29 September 2020 the landlord provided the resident with a complaint response which it submits is its final response. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s position that the landlord had told her that it would be renewing her kitchen and bathroom. However, the landlord stated that it would not be doing so as they “do no warrant replacement”. The landlord referred the resident to a customer service number for repair issues. The landlord acknowledged that it could have handled the repairs quicker and offered the resident £650 compensation – made up of £200 for repairs delay; £250 distress and inconvenience; £50 for time and trouble and £150 for patience throughout the complaints process.
On 18 October 2020 the resident asked that the paint package the landlord was sending be delivered within two weeks and be sufficient to redecorate the whole house. She also asked about reports being prepared.
On 20 October 2020 the resident confirmed that the front door and windows at the back of the house had been installed.
On 22 October 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident and advised that its position was that the bathroom and kitchen would not be renewed and the resident should report any repair issues with them.
On 2 November 2020 the resident wrote to the resident asking about the paint package and complaining about the condition of the shower room.
On 6 January 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord. The resident complained that the paint package that the landlord had “promised six months ago” had not been provided. The resident also referred to shower repairs that were needed. The landlord responded on 8 January 2021 that the paint package had now been posted and the shower repair was booked for 4 February 2021.
On 22 March 2021 the resident advised this service that work on the window cills had not commenced.There were a number of communications between the parties after this letter, including on 7 May 2021 about a number of repair items outstanding, including work on the window cills and repairs to the shower room. The resident also stated that problems with the kitchen cupboards had arisen. The resident’s position is that there are still issues with the kitchen and the bathroom.

Assessment and findings

Repairs

The crux of the resident’s complaint is that the landlord mishandled repairs to the property and the compensation it offered is inadequate. She also has ongoing concerns about the condition of the bathroom and kitchen.
Under section 1.3 of the Tenancy Agreement, the landlord has an obligation to keep in repair windows, doors, internal walls, and plasterwork. This reflects its statutory obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Section 1.8 of the Tenancy Agreement requires that when the landlord receives notice of repairs needed it “is liable, to have works of repair undertaken when required, within a reasonable timeframe of the receipt of such notice”.
The landlord acknowledged in its complaint response letter of 29 September 2020 that there were “extensive delays” in undertaking the repairs. The landlord noted that there were work orders dating back to April 2019 relating to repairs needed in the resident’s property. The landlord acknowledged that the resident contacted it on several occasions, but the matter was not progressed. The landlord also acknowledged that some of the initial work undertaken by contractors was inadequate.
The Ombudsman notes that one of the initial problems was with the standard of the work done by the first contractor who worked on the property and damage that the contract did to some of the resident’s property – the landlord acknowledges this in its letter to the resident dated 2 June 2020. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord acknowledged and rectified this. It arranged for alternative contractors and paid the resident £360 compensation for damage done. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord dealt reasonably with this specific issue and no further compensation is required for that particular aspect of the matter.
The Ombudsman finds, however, there were additional failings by the landlord regarding the repairs beyond these initial problems. The Ombudsman considers that there were unreasonable delays in first attending to the repairs and then in subsequently dealing with further issues that arose. For example, the landlord had decided in early June that it would provide replacement windows and a front door. However, it appears that these were not ordered until September 2020. It is not clear why the work on the window cills was not undertaken until early 2021. There were also failings with the landlord not sending out the paint pack to the resident within the promised timeframe. The Ombudsman also considers that there were times when the landlord failed to keep the resident sufficiently updated on the progress of the matter and its proposed resolution of the issues.
The landlord acknowledged that it could have handled the repair quicker and offered the resident £650 compensation – made up of £200 for repairs delay; £250 distress and inconvenience; £50 for time and trouble and £150 for patience throughout the complaints process.
The Ombudsman has considered whether this is a reasonable amount of compensation. The Ombudsman notes that the £150 for the complaints process is considered below. The Ombudsman is therefore considering whether £500 is reasonable compensation in respect of the substantive issue in this case which was the landlord’s overall handling of the repairs.
In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, the Ombudsman takes into account a range of factors including any distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord, and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s acts and/or omissions. It considers whether any redress is proportionate to the severity of the failing by the landlord and the impact on the resident. The Ombudsman also takes into account the evidence that has been provided. Ultimately the Ombudsman considers what would be fair and proportionate. The aim of compensation is not to be punitive but to provide redress for the impact of any failings by the landlord on the resident. In the case of compensation for distress and inconvenience, we are not able to quantify a definitive loss and the intention of such an award is to recognise the overall distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident.
In considering whether the £500 offered by the landlord in this case is reasonable, the Ombudsman has referred to this service’s Remedies Guidance. This sets out that awards between £250 and £750 may be appropriate where there has been “considerable” failings by the landlord but no permanent impact on the resident.
The resident has stated that she has suffered significant distress and inconvenience. She submits that water was coming through the walls when it rained, she had to use extension leads which she felt unsafe with and there was mould growth on the walls. She has also stated that the issues with the front door meant she had security concerns.
The Ombudsman has taken into account that the resident has been in the property for 31 years and over this period one would expect the property to deteriorate and require at times significant maintenance. A level of inconvenience is inevitable at times and the landlord cannot reasonably be liable for this. However, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s failings exacerbated the resident’s distress and inconvenience by meaning the required works took place over a significantly longer time than they reasonably could have been. Further, the landlord’s communication failings exacerbated the resident’s distress. However, the evidence does not indicate that rooms were fully unusable and the resident was not required to stay in alternative accommodation.
The Ombudsman appreciates that this has been a frustrating experience for the resident. However, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the £500 redress the landlord has offered is reasonable and does not require that the landlord pay further compensation for the mishandling of the repairs.
The resident has indicated that she continues to have concerns about the condition of the kitchen, including loose tiles and detached doors.
The Ombudsman notes that the obligation to repair must be distinguished from an obligation to replace. The Ombudsman understands that the resident would like the kitchen and the bathroom in the property to be replaced. Where it is not reasonably possible to repair, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to undertake a replacement. However, if the landlord is able to undertake an effective repair rather than replacement, it is entitled to do so. The landlord’s position is that it will not be renewing the kitchen or bathroom as “they do not warrant replacement”.
The Ombudsman notes that there has been conflicting information given by the parties on the outcomes of surveys of the property undertaken by different contractors. The Ombudsman has been provided with limited evidence on the surveys undertaken.
It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine what works may be required to the property. However, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to take reasonable steps to survey the condition of a property when issues arise and communicate the results in a reasonable way to the resident. The Ombudsman understands that the resident is not confident that a full and proper survey has been undertaken and has concerns about the condition of the bathroom and the kitchen. The Ombudsman makes no finding on what steps the landlord should take with respect to the bathroom and the kitchen in this determination. However, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has failed to take reasonable steps to communicate the outcome of the results of surveys undertaken on the property and the need for further repairs and/or replacement. The Ombudsman therefore recommends that the landlord undertake a survey of the bathroom and kitchen to identify if there are further repairs needed and/or if they have reached the limit of their lifespan and replacement is appropriate

Complaints handling

The landlord’s Complaints and Compensation Policy sets out in section 9 that there are two stages to the landlord’s complaint handling process. The policy states that the landlord “will aim” to respond to stage one cases within ten workings days of receipt of the complaint. If it needs extra time to complete the investigation the landlord will explain this to the customer and give a date for a response no later than ten working days. The policy also says that if a customer is not satisfied with a stage one response, then they may ask for the complaint to be reviewed by a senior manager at stage two. This would be the final stage of the complaints process. The policy also states that when the landlord gives its decision about a complaint it “will offer an opportunity for the customer to comment on the findings and set out their position. In most cases this will be in a dialogue with the Complaints Officer prior to the decision letter being issued.
The Ombudsman finds that there have been complaints handling failures by the landlord. The resident first made her complaint on 19 October 2019. The Ombudsman acknowledges that it was reasonable for there to be some delay in providing a complaint response whilst works were being assessed and undertaken. For example, in an email to the resident dated 16 January 2020 the landlord stated that the complaint would be kept open “until all works are resolved to ensure this is fully resolved”. This was reasonable. The Ombudsman also acknowledges that it is reasonable to expect that the Covid pandemic would have an impact on the landlord’s response from March 2020 onwards. However, the Ombudsman is not persuaded that it was reasonable for the landlord to not provide a stage one complaint response until 29 September 2020 – approximately eleven months after the resident first made the complaint.
On 12 October 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord and she referred to following up with this Service. She stated that she needed “clarification of the complaints process as [she hasn’t] received a satisfactory response to [her] initial complaint other than the Stage 1 Complaint Acknowledgement”. In the email that the landlord sent to the resident on 16 October 2020, it resent the letter of 29 September 2020 and stated that “if you feel that your complaint is not resolved, please provide details of what is outstanding that I haven’t addressed”. In her response on 18 October 2020 the resident stated “please check the attachment that you sent as it is the one I previously received”. In a letter to the landlord on 29 January 2021 this service requested that the landlord contact the resident to discuss outstanding issues and provide a written response.
The landlord has not provided a stage two response and its position is that the 29 September 2020 letter is its final position. The Ombudsman considers it is clear that the resident was not satisfied with the outcome of the stage one response letter and would have expected the landlord to undertake a further review of the matter. The Ombudsman considers it a failing that it did not do so.
The Ombudsman has considered whether the landlord’s offer of £150 for “patience throughout the complaints process” is reasonable redress for the landlord’s complaint handling failings. The Ombudsman is not persuaded that it is. The complaints handling failings occurred over a significant period of time. The failure to undertake a further investigation at a stage two level was a significant missed opportunity to potentially resolve the issue.
The Ombudsman requires the landlord to pay the resident £250 compensation for its complaint handling failings.

Determination (decision)

The Ombudsman finds that in accordance with section 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been a service failure by the landlord with respect to its handling of repairs, however in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord has provided reasonable redress for this failure.
The Ombudsman finds that in accordance with section 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been a service failure by the landlord with respect to its complaints handling.

Reasons

There were unreasonable delays in attending to the repairs and the landlord failed to communicate with the resident in a reasonable manner. However, the £500 the landlord has offered the resident to is reasonable.
The landlord took an unreasonable time to provide a stage one complaint response to the resident and failed to provide a stage two response.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman requires that the landlord pay the resident a total of £750 compensation to the resident within four weeks of the date of this Determination. The landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the Ombudsman’s order to this Service by that date. The Ombudsman notes that this includes the £650 compensation already offered by the landlord.
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord undertake, within four weeks of the date of this Determination, a survey of the bathroom and kitchen to identify if there are repairs needed and/or if they have reached the limit of their lifespan and replacement is appropriate.