Hyde Housing Association Limited (202005895)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005895

Hyde Housing Association Limited

18 March 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

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of disrepair to the roof.

Background and summary of events

The resident occupies the property under an assured tenancy in a 3-bedroom maisonette on 4 floors which commenced in August 1999. His son occupies the top floor bedroom.

The contractual, legislative and policy framework.

The tenancy agreement provides, in line with the statutory requirements pursuant to section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, that the landlord will keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property, including the roof.
The repair policy states that the landlord will attend the property in an emergency within 4 hours of the report to make the property safe, and complete any emergency repairs within 24 hours. An emergency is defined as a repair that is required to sustain the immediate health, safety or security of the resident, or that effects the structure of the building adversely. The timescale for “general repairs” is 20 working days. There is no specified time scale for major and/or complex works.
The complaints & compensation policy sets out that the landlord will investigate complaints, keeping the customer fully informed throughout the process. It takes learning from complaints seriously and will ensure that lessons learnt from complaint investigations are used to inform service improvements. In certain circumstances, the landlord may consider paying compensation as part of a complaint resolution. Each claim will be considered on a case by case basis, using the principles described in this policy and the landlord’s compensation procedure.
The complaints policy also sets out the following timescales for the landlord dealing with a complaint:-
1. Stage 1 – as soon as is reasonably possible and no later than 4 weeks.
2. Stage 2 – by the head of service or director, in the same timescale (4 weeks).
The policy defines compensation as a payment, either obligatory or discretionary, in recognition of loss suffered by a resident. There is no automatic trigger for a compensation payment, and each case will be considered on its merits.
The compensation procedure includes out the following criteria:–
1. The complainant has sustained financial loss, loss of amenity or loss of room/s.
2. The complainant has suffered stress and anxiety.
Compensation may be considered for what might generally be characterised as ‘distress and inconvenience’ (including stress, anxiety, frustration, uncertainty or worry) and will have regard to circumstances such as the severity of the distress and the length of time involved and the number of people affected.
Consideration should be given to whether a payment should be included for the time taken and the trouble the complainant has incurred in pursuing the complaint i.e. the amount of times the resident has to contact the landlord to get the issue resolved. This should not be confused with distress and inconvenience.
After a 72-hour period, reductions to the weekly basic rent charge will be made for loss of the kitchen (40%), bathroom (40%), and any other rooms (20%).
Compensation procedures include the following scale:
1. Medium Impact: The events are clearly an injustice to the complainant and the service has failed to meet the required standards. This includes a repeated failure by the landlord to address the shortcomings of a low impact event.
2. Major Impact: This is when a serious failure in service standards occurs. It could either be the severity of the event, persistent failure over a protracted time, or an unacceptable number of attempts to resolve and address the complaint. Major impact could also apply to expenses incurred by the complainant. The landlord would only consider expenses appropriate to the event.
When there is a delay in delivering a service, which is the responsibility of the landlord. This is broken down into:–
1. Low impact of the delay, up to £100
2. Medium impact of the delay £250
3. Major impact of the delay £500
In some circumstances, the landlord will make a payment for distress and inconvenience. This can include stress, anxiety, frustration, uncertainty, inconvenience, worry or outrage. This should consider the severity, length of time suffered, number of people affected (e.g. one person or a whole family) and vulnerability.
1. Low Impact of the delay up to £100
2. Medium Impact of the delay £250
3. Major Impact of the delay with injury to health £500
The payment for time and trouble is up to a maximum of £50.

Chronology

There is a dispute as to the date that the resident first reported a leak to the roof of the property to the landlord. The resident said that he made this initial report on 11 November 2019, while the landlord states that this issue was not reported until 27 November 2019. The landlord attended the property on 27 November 2019 and identified a leak coming from the roof, a hole in the ceiling with chunks of plaster coming off. The resident was informed that the repair to the roof would be carried out on the 17 December 2019. According to the resident, he was informed that scaffolding would be required.
The landlord’s contractor attended on 17 December 2019, but there was no scaffolding provided, and the contractor stated that the repair could not be carried out as scaffolding was required. Despite the repair works not having been carried out, a contractor of the landlord attended on 6 January 2020 to re-plaster the damaged ceiling.
On 20 January 2020, the resident informed the landlord that his son had had to move out temporarily due to the flooding in his bedroom.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 17 February 2020, noting that the leak has been constant, but has not led to any mould build-up, but had damaged the bedroom ceiling. It promised that works will be completed in March 2020. The landlord treated the matter as a complaint.
On 5 March 2020, the resident reported there was a “severe” leak in his front room, (2 floors below) “streaming leak coming from corner of front room where there is a massive crack and now a big damp patch”. The landlord stated that it was awaiting a quote for works regarding replacing the entire roof, and that scaffold design was the “main issue”.
On the same day, the resident also reported that water was flooding the mains and the property had lost the electric power. The landlord effected repairs to restore the power by midnight on the same day.
On 6 March 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident with an update that more time was needed as it was waiting for approval and confirmation of the quote, and it would write again on 20 March 2020.
The resident reported on 11 March 2020 that he was distressed. He said that he suffered from anxiety and depression, and the events on 5 March 2020 caused him to have a panic attack and to use his beater-blockers in order to calm himself.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 March 2020 with an update. It was still awaiting approval and confirmation on quotes, and would respond to the complaint by 3 April 2020. The landlord subsequently revised this target date on 30 March 2020 for a response on 29 April 2020, subject to the lockdown.
The landlord wrote to the resident 9 April 2020 with its first response to the complaint. It stated that it needed to arrange for design scaffolding to be erected which would take three weeks. It was necessary to replace the entire roof of the three adjacent properties, including the resident’s, but was unable to carry out these works during lockdown. The landlord acknowledged that the repairs could have been carried out sooner and apologised for the delay and that it did not communicate better following the report of 27 November 2019. The landlord said it would take steps to ensure this did not happen again.
The landlord offered £100 broken down as follows:
1. £50 for the delays experienced
2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused
Resident refused the offer so on 1 May 2020 the landlord increased the offer of compensation from £100 to £250 broken down as follows:
1. £50 for the delays
2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused
3. £50 for the poor communication
4. £50 for the poor management of works which led to plaster attending before the leak was repaired
5. £50 for the loss of power in the property because of the delays with the works
The resident requested to escalate the complaint on 15 June 2020 to stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure, stating there were delays before and after lockdown. He cited his reasons as follows: –
1. Rain was still coming into his home – he was constantly having to worry about the weather and the impact this was having on his home.
2. The repair date was scheduled for Monday 3 August 2020, a further two/three months away.
3. The resident requested a temporary repair.
4. Due to the delays, the resident was feeling the impact of having contractors in his property, as well as requiring repair works to all rooms, which work should have been avoided.
5. The resident and his family were mentally affected by the issue. and his son was unable to sleep in his bedroom.
6. He felt that he was required to have too many people in his property, and he had to make “too much” contact with the landlord.
7. He had been told that the windows were now going to be replaced too and felt this added to the anxiety.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 July 2020 with its final response to the complaint. The work to erect the design scaffolding was due to begin on 20 July 2020 and was expected to take around three weeks to complete. Once the scaffolding was erected, work to replace the roof would begin, and this was expected to be on or around 3 August 2020. It added that:
1. £250.00 compensation was fair and appropriate and would not increase this offer any further.
2. A temporary repair was not possible but did not give reasons.
3. The landlord accepted there were initial delays but that the subsequent delays were due to lockdown, which had a knock-on effect on obtaining the necessary materials.
4. The scaffolding required had to be designed and would take several weeks to be erected.
5. The windows would be removed from the programme.
The works were completed 2 October 2020, although there were some further repair issues in relation to tiles, the lead works and downpipes, and the internal repairs were yet to be scheduled.

Assessment and findings

The landlord adhered to the complaints policy and the complaints handling was appropriate in that it kept the resident informed as to progress. It did what it said it would do, such as writing to the resident again and explaining any delays. It also set out what lessons it had learnt from the process.
There is a discrepancy on the date of the initial report. The landlord seems to have used the date its contractor attended the resident’s property (27 November 2019) rather than the date the resident provided (11 November 2019). It is reasonable to conclude that the resident first reported the leak 11 November 2019 rather than 27 November 2019 given that the resident described the events in some detail. While the landlord has provided the repairs records, it is not clear that the date described as the ‘issue date’ is the date of the actual report. While the repair was unlikely to have been classed as an emergency, given it was not work that was required in order to address health, safety or security; or immediately effect the structure adversely, 11 days was not a reasonable timescale in which to attend a leak to complete the initial inspection. The landlord ought to have assessed the risk of the situation sooner and it caused the resident the need to chase the landlord.
The landlord itself queried whether a further timescale of three weeks (27 November 2019 to 17 December 2019) was appropriate in which to carry out repairs. The landlord also failed to address whether scaffolding was required. While the landlord had to assess what works were required and those works may have been more extensive than originally envisaged, it is not clear why there was a further delay from December 2019 to March 2020. Taking more timely action on the resident’s initial reports might have resulted in the entire issue being resolved by the time the national lockdown commenced in March 2020.
The landlord acknowledged its faults pre -lockdown. It was appropriate that the landlord apologised for the initial delay as it showed that the landlord took its responsibility seriously. However, the landlord has not considered whether if the landlord had begun works before lockdown, how much further down the line the repairs may have been before lockdown began.
While the landlord encountered real difficulties post-lockdown, which it explained in detail, this may have been avoidable if the landlord had acted promptly and in accordance with its obligations from the outset.
It is appropriate and reasonable that the landlord made an offer of compensation, which it subsequently increased, however the offer did not recognise the extent of the resident’s distress, or loss of amenity including the resident’s son having to move out of his bedroom.
While there is no evidence of the absolute necessity for the son moving out, the landlord has not contested this, and the water ingress clearly effected the use of the property. The records show there was a hole in the ceiling and the resident described the leak dripping into his son’s bedroom when it rained. It is reasonable to conclude that the use of the room was significantly affected.
The evidence showed that damage got worse over time, in that the water affected the property two floors down, even disabling the electrical power on 5 March 2020 which event had a significant impact on the resident, given his vulnerability. The disrepair itself had an accumulative effect on the resident which the resident explained in his request to escalate the complaint.
It was reasonable that the landlord considered the request by the resident for a temporary repair and the landlord was entitled to make a judgement on whether that was possible. The landlord’s final response recognised there were delays, that the resident was caused distress and inconvenience, there was poor communication, poor management, and the loss of power in the property in accordance with its complaints policy. It did not, however, address the loss of the son’s bedroom, ‘the time and trouble’ element referred to in its policy, or recognise the extent of the impact of the disrepair on the resident.
For these reasons, the amount of compensation offered by the landlord is not adequate, given the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays and lack of communication at the outset, and the loss of the use of the bedroom, which is not disputed. There is no clear evidence, however, how much of the overall delay can be attributed to the landlord. The evidence shows that the repair was more extensive than anticipated, given it affected three properties. The repair required bespoke scaffolding, and the landlord to source materials from overseas. This may have been a lengthy process in any event.
Delays due to lockdown itself cannot be attributed to the landlord. It was prevented from progressing the works during lockdown, and then was further delayed by the difficulty in sourcing materials, rendered more difficult due to lockdown. However, the repair, or sufficient preparation for the repair may have been carried out before lockdown, but for the landlord’s delays, but there is no clear evidence that is the case. Nevertheless, there were delays, which on the balance of probabilities, were attributable to the landlord, that had significant impact on the resident and his family.
Whilst the delays in providing a full resolution to the issue were, in part, due to the impact of the pandemic on the landlord’s service delivery, it remains that the resident’s property was left with the significant impact of the roof issue (loss or partial loss of the use of rooms, damage to electrics, distress/inconvenience etc..) for a period of nearly 11 months. In the circumstances, it would be appropriate for the amount of compensation to be increased to a sum in line with the Ombudsman’s consideration of cases involving landlord service failure having a significant impact on a household over a prolonged period.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the report of the disrepair.

Reasons

The delay to the repairs and its consequential impact on the resident was significant however not all the delay can be necessarily attributed to the landlord. The determination would have been maladministration, but the landlord has largely acknowledged fault, it was taking steps to address the disrepair so that it has resolved the repair or will do so imminently.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total amount of £1,000 (to include the sum of £250 already offered) in recognition of the impact of the loss of the use of the top floor room, the distress and inconvenience to the extent it was avoidable, in recognition of the resident’s vulnerabilities and having regard to the landlord’s own policies.
The landlord is to confirm compliance to the Housing Ombudsman service with the above order within 28 days of this report.