Hyde Housing Association Limited (202003230)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003230

Hyde Housing Association Limited

30 April 2021


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 concerns:
    1. the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a water leak in her property.
    2. the landlord’s handling of historical issues to the resident’s property.
    3. the impact the condition of the property had on the resident’s health.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman 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.

Historical issues of a water leak

  1. Paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman 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”.
  2. Throughout her complaint the resident has referred to leaks through her kitchen ceiling dating back to November 2006, and subsequent ceiling collapses. No evidence has been provided for this investigation of a formal complaint being raised with the landlord until January 2020. 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. Because of that, and in line with paragraph 39(e), this investigation will centre on the events leading up to the resident’s complaint in 2020.

Impact on resident’s health

  1. Under paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”.
  2. The resident has also referenced how the landlord’s failure to adequately address the water leak in her kitchen has impacted her health. Unfortunately, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more usually dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident has been assisted by a representative throughout her complaint. For ease of reference, both parties will be referred to as ‘the resident’ in this report.
  3. Evidence has been provided for this investigation of the landlord’s internal emails from May 2012. In these emails the landlord said that it would agree to a management transfer for the resident once a suitable property became available. It also said that it could “approach the local authority to accept her as an urgent re-housing case”.
  4. According to the landlord’s records, the resident reported a water leak on 23 December 2019. The landlord deemed this as a “containable leak” and did not raise it as an emergency appointment. A contractor then attended the resident’s property on 8 January 2020, but was unable to gain access. The landlord’s records also indicate that another appointment was arranged for 23 January. However, it is not entirely clear why this appointment did not go ahead, the landlord later said that it was because the contractor was unable to gain access.
  5. On 28 January 2020 the resident raised a stage one complaint to the landlord. She raised some issues that do not fall under the parameters of this investigation. She also said that following her report of a leak in her kitchen in December 2019, a contractor had attended without prior notice on 8 January 2020. She asked them to return later in the day, but this did not happen. She said that she received correspondence concerning appointments for 20 and 23 January but “to her knowledge no contractors” came.
  6. As an outcome to her complaint, the resident asked for the leak in her kitchen ceiling to “be fully and permanently addressed and that the work be completed with urgency”. She said that as the leak had returned, she wanted to accept the landlord’s 2012 offer. She also asked for compensation for the inconvenience and distress caused by the long history of the leak and what she saw as the landlord’s failure to resolve it.
  7. On 6 February 2020 a contractor applied stain block to the kitchen ceiling of the resident’s property.
  8. The resident confirmed with the landlord on 13 February 2020 that there had been no further leaks in her property. However, she said that she anticipated that “leaking [would] continue to be a problem”.
  9. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on or around 24 February 2020, (the exact date is unknown). It referred to issues that are not part of this investigation. It said that the leak that the resident reported on 23 December 2019 was containable and therefore would not have been raised as an emergency appointment. It said that its contractor was unable to access the resident’s property on 8 and 23 January 2020. It confirmed that its contractor attended on 6 February and “repaired the ceiling”. It concluded that it had done everything it could to try and fix the ceiling. It acknowledged that there was some miscommunication during the repair, but said that it had not caused any delays.
  10. It explained that the offer made in 2012 was “no longer an arrangement that was in place” so was unable to accept her request. It explained that it no longer operated a transfer list for tenants wishing to move to an alternative property. It advised the resident that in order to do so, she would need to register with the local authority’s scheme, or she could consider a mutual exchange. It signposted her to a website for more information concerning mutual exchanges, and   explained how the resident could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied with the outcome.
  11. The resident escalated her complaint on 12 March 2020. She reiterated what she had said in her stage one complaint, and referred to issues that do not form part of this investigation. She said that on 6 February when the contractors attended, they carried out “unspecified works to the ceiling” and these works “were confined to the repainting of the ceiling”. She said that since the work carried out on 6 February, the ceiling was “again bubbling and staining indicating that there continues to be water ingress”.
  12. She said that the landlord’s response to her request to accept the offer it made in 2012 was unsatisfactory as her “need to move has become more compelling over time”. She said that although the landlord did not have an internal transfer list, it did allow for “management moves”.
  13. The landlord advised the resident on 18 March, 20 April,18 May, 8 June, and 6 July 2020 that although her complaint had been escalated , it would only focus on emergency repairs and there would be a delay resolving her complaint due to the COVID 19 lockdown. The letter sent on 6 July said that it hoped to give the resident a full response by 10 August.
  14. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 11 September 2020. It said that when its contractors attended to investigate the reports of a leak in February, they did not find an active leak and that there had been no reports of a leak since 2019. It acknowledged that its stage one complaint response did not provide the resident with reassurance that the issue was resolved, nor was it sympathetic. It apologised for that. It said that although a full investigation was completed in her property, and no active leak was found in the kitchen ceiling, it had requested a post-work inspection to be completed to ensure that there was no active leak. It said that due to the COVID 19 restrictions, it had been unable to complete this inspection sooner. It acknowledged and apologised for this. It offered the resident compensation of £250 comprised of:
    1. £50 for her time and trouble expressing her concerns regarding the ceiling.
    2. £150 for her patience throughout the complaints process.
    3. £50 for the distress and inconvenience “this has clearly caused”.
  15. It concluded by explaining how the resident could refer her complaint to this Service if she remained dissatisfied with the outcome.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord is responsible for keeping in reasonable condition the structure and exterior of the resident’s property, which would include internal walls and ceilings. The tenancy agreement also stipulates that the landlord will carry out repairs within a reasonable time of it being notified of the issue; the time taken will depend on the urgency of the repair. However, it aims to complete repairs that are not an emergency (a repair to “sustain the immediate health, safety or security of the resident, or that affects the structure of the building adversely”) within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord explained to the resident that the water leak that she had described appeared to be “containable”, and therefore it was reasonable that it did not raise this as an emergency repair requiring immediate attention. There appears to be no dispute that a contractor attempted to access the resident’s property on 8 January. The landlord said that a contractor also visited on 23 January but could not gain access. Therefore, as the resident first notified the landlord of the 22 or 23 December 2019 of a water leak, the appointment scheduled for 8 January was within the timeframe of 20 working days. Work was then completed to the kitchen ceiling on 6 February. Although this timeframe exceeded the 20 working day target for non-emergency repairs, the evidence shows that this was not due to inaction on the landlord’s behalf as it did arrange the relevant appointments, but these were not carried out for reasons beyond its control.
  3. In its stage two complaint response the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns about an active leak which she believed had not been resolved. It organised a post-work inspection to confirm that this was not the case. This was a reasonable response from the landlord as it acknowledged the resident’s concerns, and took steps to reassure itself and the resident that there was no ongoing issue.
  4. The resident remained dissatisfied that the landlord did not uphold its offer of a management transfer made in 2012. The landlord explained why it could not honour this offer, and also explained that instead she could refer to the local authority or consider a mutual exchange. The landlord’s decision regarding an offer made eight years prior was not an unreasonable one. That offer was made in light of the circumstances at the time, and could not reasonably be held to still stand so many years later. Instead, the landlord suggested ways in which the resident could move homes using the options available currently. Although the landlord did not readdress the issue in its stage two complaint response, its explanation in its stage one complaint response provided the resident with appropriate detail as to why it had declined her request.
  5. The landlord’s complaints policy stipulates that in the event that it is unable to provide a full complaint response within the target timescales, it will advise the resident that additional time is required, and ask them how often they would like updates. The evidence provided for this investigation shows that the landlord gave the resident monthly updates from March until July about the status of the complaint. No evidence has been provided for this investigation of an update in August explaining that the complaint response would again be delayed until September. In this instance the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations. In its stage two complaint response the landlord offered the resident £150 compensation for her patience throughout its complaints procedure. This was a reasonable offer by the landlord, considering that it had provided reasonable updates, and the admittedly long time taken to issue the final response appears to have been heavily affected by the COVID 19 lockdown. The landlord offered the resident a further £50 for her distress and inconvenience and £50 for her time and trouble during the complaint procedure. This was in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy which says that it can offer compensation in recognition of a resident’s time and trouble to make a complaint, and in recognition of any distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
  6. Ultimately, the landlord acted in accordance with its repairs policy when the resident reported a water leak in her kitchen. The relevant work was carried out, and the landlord then organised a post-work inspection to resolve the resident’s concerns of an active leak. It offered the resident a reasonable amount of compensation in light of its delayed stage two complaint response, kept her updated, and clearly explained why the 2012 offer was no longer available and how she could look into other options for moving homes.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a water leak in her property.

Reasons

  1. The landlord responded to the resident’s reports of a water leak by organising repair work to her kitchen ceiling and then arranging a post-work inspection to reassure the resident that there was no active leak. Although its stage two complaint response was delayed, it kept the resident updated regularly and offered her compensation. Its explanation as to why it could not uphold an offer from 2012 was reasonable and it advised her on alternative ways to move properties.